
• • • ^ 



















•V" 



'-«-0' 




'bV 







• -f» 



o ^ 




.-^ 



.0' •.!ZnL'* > 



■vT. ^V 






















'bV" 



















.^•^°- 




^^-^^^ 





' • «- ev .O^ •ill'* -^ v" , • • •. "V .0 . 




Ho«, 




-^^o^ 

^°^ 







REPLY 



TO 



REV. L. A. LAMBERT'S 



"Notes on Tngersoll." 



BY 



B. W. LACY. 






BY INVITATION OF REV. FATHER LAMBERT. 




PHILADELPHIA : 
KEYSTONE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 

No. 323 Walnut Street. 

1885. 






,u 



Copyrighied by B. W. Lacy, 1885. 



CONTENTS 



PREFACE 5 

MOTTOES 8 

INTRODUCTORY 9 

CHAPTER I. — Indecorous Language of Mr. IngersoU — Father Lambert's Vulgar and 
Abusive Methods — " Physician, Heal Thyself" — The Promise to "Grant Nothing and to 
Take Nothing for Granted," followed by the Substitution of Assertion for Proof—" Glib 
Little Whiffets," and "Smirched Character" 15 

CHAPTER II. — Priestly Metaphysics, according to which God, Time, Space, and Matter 
must be Annihilated ! — Freedom of the Will — Unsolved Problems 20 

CHAPTER III — Law — Laws and Nonentities — An Insane Conclusion — The Inductive and 
Deductive Processes of Reasoning — Witches, Heretics, and Unbaptized Infants— Cruelty 
of Dogmatism — Small Criticisms — Definition of Law, etc 26 

CHAPTER IV.— The Black Flag— More Metaphysics—" Pure Act"— Can we Know that 
God Exists? — Difference between Knowledge, Belief and Opinion — Human Ignorance — 
The Right to Express an Honest Opinion — The Modesty ot Science — Moral Right and 
Legal Right— Martyrs to Truth; the Debt We Owe Them 31 

CHAPTER v.— The Common Scold— The Cotton of Catholicity— The Argument from 
" Design" — Eternal Succession of Being — Plurality of Gods — The Fall of Man — Is it Just 
that Animals should Endure Uncompensated Suffering because " In Adam's Fall we Sinned 
All? " — Divine Mercy not.a Sin-License 38 

CHAPTER VI. — Mr. IngersoU's Reply to the Argument from "Design" — Self-existence 
Alleged by Father Lambert to Imply the Infinity and Perfection of every Attribute; the 
Fallacy of the Doctrine — " Infinite Justice" a Redundant Expression; the Word ^ust not 
Logically Admitting of Degrees of Comparison — God Supposed to be Flattered by Compli- 
mentary Words — The Finite Cannot Measure the Infinite, but may Test its Nature and 
Quality — Opinion, Good or Bad, is Judgment 43 

CHAPTER VII.— The Priest "Begs the Question"— Should we Pin our Faith to the 
Sleeves of Great Men?— The Spirit of Inquiry in the Air — Subtle and Ingenious Argument 
from Bro7vnson's Quarterly Revieiu : its Fallacy — Logic and Logical Quibbles — Good-bye 
to Metaphysics — Is the Bible Inspired? 48 

CHAPTER VIII.— Father Lambert on the ^Esthetic- Art Culture— Painting and Sculpture 
— The Jews as an Art Cultivating People Contrasted with Greeks, Romans, etc. — The 
Father's Definition of Art too Contracted — " The Roving Lectur.er " 54 

CHAPTER IX.— Jewish Atrocities Charg d on God— The Right of God to Inflict Wan- 
ton Suffering on His Creatures Denied — God has no Right to do Wrong — Justice with 
God and Man Qualitatively Alike though Quantitatively Unequal — Gross Conceptions of 
Deity — Jewish Barbarities-^" Captive Maidens" — Lying Spirits, etc., etc 59 

(3) 



4 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER X.— A Grand Fallacy— Witches, Ghosts and Demons— The Myths of Mythol- 
ogy — " Religious Toleration, Free Thought and Treason" — Idolatries of King Solomon 
— " The Liberty to Think Error" 68 

CHAPTER XI. — Father Lambert's Dignified Headings — Human Ignorance and Divine 
Pity— Sinful Ignorance— Wars of Persecution— Exterminating the Heathen— The Father's 
Advice to " Brain" the Infants of Savages 77 

CHAPTER XII.— Wars of Extermination— Slavery— Defensive Wars not Wars of Con- 
quc=,t—A//f^eci Superiority of Physical over Moral Power 82 

CHAPTER XIII.— Liberty— Polygamy— Rousseau's Opinion of Philosophers — Philosophy 
and Theology Compared 86 

CHAPTER XIV.— Woman's Rights and the Bible— Woman's Condition in Heathen and 
Pagan Nations— Mr. IngersoU's Articles Garbled and Misquoted in the "Notes"— St. 
Paul and Woman's Rights 96 

CHAPTER XV.— Adam, Eve, and the Serpent— The Comparative Merits of Jews and 
Heathens — Carrion Flesh for Strangers and Aliens — The God of the Jews Established 
Slavery — "Exterminate" Defined — William Penn and the Indians 102 

CHAPTER XVI. — Argument and Assumption — Slavery — Polygamy — Legislation of the 
Roman Catholic Church Against Slavery — Father Lambert to Make a " Point" Splits a 
Sentence in Two and Changes Punctuation — Misquotations by the Father — Slavery in 
Jise//, is it Sinful?— Blanchard and Rice's Debate on Slavery— Miracles 107 

CHAPTER XVII.— The Authorship of the Gospels— The Gospels do not Purport to have 
been Written by Matthew, Mark, Luke ar.d John — Diverse Renderings in Manuscripts of 
the Scriptures — Orthodox Authority — Original Purity of Text of Scripture Early Lost — 
Catholic Authority — The Bible does not Prove Itself— Translations of Scripture — Miracles. 120 

CHAPTER XVIIL— Miracles— Hume— Gibbon— Witchcraft a Superstition— Catholic Tes- 
timony—" The Star in the East " and the " Wise Men "— Fenelon and the Bible Question 
— Josephus — Tooley Street Tailors — The Prodigies Attending the Birth of Jesus — Renan 
on Miracles 135 

CHAPTER XIX.— Father Lambert's Chow-chow Method— The Dogma of Atonement- 
Necessity of Belief and of the Second Birth — Josephus Again — Rev. Lambert's Terrible 
Mistake about John's Reference to the Ascension — Genealogy of Jesus 149 

CHAPTER XX.— Proof of Miracles— Who Wrote the Gospels?— The Evangelists Neither 
Claim to Write by Authority nor to be Guided by Inspiration — Neither Catholics nor Prot- 
estants have an Authoritative Translation of the Scriptures — The Father's Statements 
Show that John the Apostle could not have Written the Fourth Gospel 162 

CHAPTER XXI.— The Honest Infidel— Should Men be Punished for Honest Belief?— 
Judas Iscariot — If Catholicity is the True Faith the Whole Protestant World will be Sent 
to Hell to Keep Company with the Infidel — Vicarious Suffering, etc., etc 167 

CHAPTER XXII.— Non-Resistance— The Standard of Right and Wrong— Experience 
Teaches that Evil Acts Produce Evil Consequences— A Saint and Father of the Catholic 
Church Justified the Polygamy of the Jews 171 

CHAPTER XXIII— Father Lambert's Vulgar and Abusive Methods Chargeable, not to 
the Man, but to his Religion — The Millennial Dawn — "Criticism Born of the Present 
Generation" — Catholic Lambs and Green Pastures — Noble and Pure Religions of the 
Ancient Nations — Conclusion i^g 

APPENDICES 183 



PREFACE. 



Should censure be visited upon the writer for 
having penned the following essay for public inspec- 
tion, such reproof cannot, in justice, proceed from ad- 
herents to the Roman Catholic faith. From attacks 
from that earnest and devout class the author may 
safely shelter himself behind the sacred vestments of 
the Reverend Father whose urgent and repeated 
invitation has called forth this reply. 

The author desires it to be distinctly understood 
that his present task was undertaken in response to 
multiple requests and challenges scattered through 
the length and breadth of the land and wafted in pro- 
fusion to foreign shores. 

This zeal Is not to be deprecated. So confident is 
the Father of the impenetrability of his armor that, 
like a second Fitz James, he defies one and all of the 
friends of free thought to expend their might on his 
shield and helmet. 



**Come one, come all ! this rock shall fly 
From its firm base, as soon as I." 



(5) 



PREFACE. 



This spirit evinces the sublime of moral heroism, 
and cannot be too highly praised. 

Then how commendable in the good priest not to 
reserve to himself and his church a monopoly of the 
truth. With lavish beneficence and persistent effort 
he would fain disseminate those doctrinal verities 
which gladden his own soul and trace for him a path- 
way to the skies. In gratifying the desires of such a 
man the author cannot fear that he is doing amiss. 

As to that small and ignorant class who may think 
that the " Notes " are not endrely worthy of serious 
reply, let me say, that the Father's work has received 
the very highest encomiums and has been proclaimed 
an unmiswerable argument by a very respectable part 
of the religious and secular press of this and other 
countries. As a commercial rule, at least, when the 
maker of paper is of quesdonable solvency It Is legiti- 
mate to look to Its endorsers. 

That our readers may appreciate these remarks we 
publish (see Appendix A.) one of the Father's chal- 
lenges and a few of the many favorable notices from 
the press which his work has called forth. The 
Father, surely, will not object to this gratuitous ad- 
vertisement of his work, which we desire our readers 
to purchase and peruse. 
. There be many, not in sympathy with the Roman 



PREFACE. y 

Catholic faith, who believe that the cause of righteous- 
ness can be best subserved by a suppression of truths 
which seem to them to militate against religion, and 
of sentiments, however, honestly entertained, which 
are regarded by the majority as erroneous. 

This well-meaning class should remember that there 
is a correlation of truths as well as of forces, and that 
two truths cannot possibly antagonize each other. 
That especially in this age of enlightenment and of 
intellectual freedom we may safely discard the dis- 
guises and spiritual enchantments which lent a charm 
to primitive faiths ; and that error, exposed to popular 
scrutiny, is less dangerous than when hidden in the 
secret recesses of the individual mind or whispered 
into the ears of the few who may entertain kindred 
sentiments. 

To errors exposed the proper antidotes may be 
administered; to errors concealed no adequate cor- 
rectives can be applied. 

Philadelphia, /^«aa;7 ist, 1885. 



" It is a self-evident principle that when there are equal interests involved in 
any subject, there are equal rights to investigate and discuss." — Ko7na7iism Not 
Christianity, by N. L. Rice, D. D. 

" In a matter so solemn as that of religion, all men whose temporal interests 
are not involved in existing institutions earnestly desire to find the truth." — 
Draper's History of the Conflict bctioeen Religion and Science. 

" The successful revolutions have been the triumphs of disproof, they have 
consisted in the negation of some earlier belief; the explosion of some over- 
grown superstition." — Westminster Review. 

" It is to error that must be attributed those insupportable chains that tyrants 
and priests have forged for all the nations. It is to error that must be attributed 
the slavery which the people of almost every country have fallen into, and whom 
nature designed should pursue their happiness with the most perfect freedom. It 
is to error that must be attributed those religious terrors that have everywhere 
petrified man with fear, or made him destroy himself for chimeras. It is to error 
that must be attributed those inveterate hatreds, those barbarous persecutions, 
those continual massacres, of which the earth has too often been made the 
theatre, under pretence of serving the interests of heaven." — System of A^ature, by 

MiRABAUD. 

" Fixed and invariable are the penalties which follow the violation of the 
laws of our being, as also the rewards of their observance." — The author. 

" Let not him who girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it 
off." — Scripture. 
(8) 



INTRODUCTORY. 



THE AMENITIES OF CONTROVERSY. 

Invective and personally denunciatory words, laden with 
the virus of vindictiveness, are unbecoming in controversy, 
especially upon religious topics ; and are not promotive of 
truth. " Soft words and hard arguments " should be the motto 
of every controversialist. To expose error or vindicate truth, 
wit, humor and sarcasm may be often employed with profit; 
for if used with propriety and with respect to the feelings of an 
opponent they relieve the tedium of discussion and impart to 
dry statement a savory flavor. It does not follow because the 
ideas of another are abhorrent to us that we should indulge in 
personal detraction. To impugn the sincerity of a disputant 
is grossly vulgar and unworthy a chivalrous defender of the 
faith. If error be a crime, still let us love the offender while 
we hate his offense. 

Of all kinds of bitterness the most bitter is engendered by 
pious controversy. Why ? Because in regard to religious 
belief timidity braces men against doubt and leads them to 
affirm, with the most scrupulous and unrelenting dogmatism, 
tHose doctrines and facts the truth or falsity of which it is 
impossible to prove. They call this being on the " safe side," 
and visit with holy hate those who disturb their inglorious 
repose. 

Buckle has shown that in past time the more sincere were 
men in their religious faith the more zealous were they as 
persecutors 

(9) 



10 REPLY TO LAMBERT. 

Who doubts the honesty of Calvin when he kindled the 
flame that consumed the noble Servetus ? who the honesty of 
Saul when he breathed out " threatenings and slaughter against 
the disciples of the Lord ? " 

Nevertheless, innocence must be torn in fragments when 
the broad-mouthed hounds of bigotry, cruel and insatiate, are 
unleashed. 

Bigotry is a legacy of the past : like slavery and polygamy 
it is a relic of barbarism. It must be swept away with the 
rubbish of barbaric ages, even in its milder and more insinu- 
ating forms, while honest, earnest souls are garnering with 
sedulous care every grain of truth which the past has be- 
queathed us. 

It would be interesting to inquire how predisposition to 
uncharity grew up ; how in former years it led to the shed- 
ding of seas of blood and to the sacrifice, by ignominious 
torture, of hecatombs of innocent victims, who attested their 
sincerity by cheerfully enduring agonies by fagot and flame, 
inflicted as the penalty of honest faith. The flame is extin- 
guished; the fagot applied to holier purposes than human 
torture. These antidotes to heresy have fallen into disuse. 
The grand engineries of human thought and honest purpose 
propel the car of progress, dispensing as it moves the bless- 
ings of knowledge with " its vast combinations for the benefits 
of our race ; " and yet the soul of bigotry still lives and in its 
impotent rage mutters curses against that untrammelled liberty 
of thought and speech which is the crowning glory of our 
age. 

I purpose to review a work by Rev. L. A. Lambert, entitled 
" Notes on Ingersoll." Tli.e reverend gentleman is a Roman 
Catholic priest of high repute in his own church, and of 
considerable reputation as a controversialist elsewhere. The 
history of this contention is as follows: In i88i a controversy 



INTRODUCTORY. I I 

on religions topics arose between two intellectual gladiators 
of the highest type, viz., Hon. Jeremiah S, Black and Col. 
Robert G. Ingersoll. A disagreement arose between Judge 
Black and the Noj^th American Review, in which both con- 
testants published their essays, and the controversy was dis- 
continued. Since " the end of controversy," certain writers 
of greater or less merit, not deeming, it would seem, the issue 
fully settled, while insisting that Mr. Ingersoll had advanced 
no arguments which have not been answered time and again 
by Christian apologists, yet enter the arena of polemic con- 
flict, in attempt to vanquish a dead enemy. Surely by this 
time Mr. Ingersoll should be a sadly mutilated corpse. 

With regard to the comparative merits of the arguments of 
Col. Ingersoll and the late lamented Judge Black I will not 
act as umpire. Each in the other found a foeman worthy of 
his steel. Yet, while in such case it were indecorous to es- 
pouse the cause of the living against the dead, we may, in 
'response to the good priest's invitation to a banquet of reason,, 
speakfreely on subjects of equal interest to all men. I have 
to deal with the logic of one high in the confidence of a 
church claiming to be infallible in all matters of doctrines and 
morals : one who, without awaiting the popular verdict, pro- 
claims himself victor in language more " gushing " than refined. 

This review is prompted rather by the spirit in which the 
Father's work is written, and by sundry misstatements it con- 
tains, than by the cogency of its logic. 

It is having a wide circulation among a class which is too 
liable to mistake utterance for truth. It has also been en- 
dorsed, as a triumphant argument, by a number of reputable 
prints, weekly and daily, religious and secular. Enough has 
been said to indicate disapprobation of the spirit in which it 
is written. That spirit should be kindly but firmly rebuked. 
It will be the aim of the writer not to transcend the courtesies 



12 REPLY TO LAMBERT. 

of debate, and when words like "misstatement," "quibble," 
etc., are used, the word " unintentional" should be considered 
as going before them. Only an extreme case can justify 
criminal charges, and slang phrases should nevxr be indulged, 
especially by the " Lord's anointed." Braggadocio, though 
not wounding to the feelings of a sensible opponent, vul- 
garizes those who employ it, and sometimes misleads ignor- 
ant and unsophisticated minds. Rev. Father Cronan, in his 
preface to the " Notes," calls Mr. Ingersoll " that notorious 
little fraud." What dignified sarcasm ! It would seem to a 
refined pagan that the " sword of the spirit " employed by the 
pious priests was somewhat rust-eaten at the beginning of the 
conflict. I had intended to embellish this essay with a dozen 
or two of such jewels taken from the body of the work, but 
my heart fails me. The spirit and literary refinement of the 
" Notes " is fairly indicated in the concluding paragraph. 
" Of course we do not expect him [Ingersoll] to reply to 
us, and for several reasons : first, he won't want to ; second, 
he can't ; third, he can pretend not to notice an obscure coun- 
try pastor. Very well, then let some of his disciples or ad- 
mirers try to rehabilitate his smirched character. We hold 
ourselves responsible to him, and to all the glib little whiffets 
of his shallow school." 

I am a disciple (learner) of Mr. Ingersoll ; so of any one, 
be he prince or peasant, who imparts to me aught that can 
inspire the intellect or ennoble the soul ; but I am not Mr. 
IngersoU's apostle as much as I admire his intellect, honor 
his courage, and respect his sincerity. My motto is : 

" Seize upon truth where'er 'tis found, 

Among your friends, among your foes; 
On Christian or on heathen ground ; 
The flower divine where'er it grows; 
Reject the thistle, but assume the rose." 



INTRODUCTORY. 1 3 

In this spirit I write. Not to formulate my views further 
than necessary, for that were foreign to the controversy ; 
not to show that Mr. IngcrsoU cannot be answered — that is 
not affirmed. Within a week, a day, the conviction may be 
forced upon us that he is radically at fault. If so, earnestly 
would I labor to make his errors manifest to all. A great 
thinker has said that ** he who says he will not be convinced 
n^akes himself a slave to present opinion." 

Persuade me that the pretensions of Catholicity are well 
founded, and I will consign myself to the arms and rest in the 
bosom of *' Mother Church." But what I shall herein at- 
tempt to show is that the Reverend Father, on the chief points 
involved in the present contention, has been eminently unsuc- 
cessful in his ambitious attempt. If I succeed, and an arro- 
gant priesthood — arrogant as to exceptions only, I trust — are 
taught a modicum of modesty when they oppose the views 
of men as honest as themselves, the labor expended in this 
behalf will not have been in vain. 

If further they are made conscious of the truth that each 
succeeding age has its new issues, which should be bravely 
met by the devotees of truth, then will their pulpits cease 
giving out from day to day a rehash of threadbare, somnifer- 
ous dogmas, musty with age, and alive only as the mummies 
of the pyramids are alive, and refresh us with living problems 
and freshly discovered facts of science, comporting, as they 
must and should be shown to do, with the material and spir- 
itual interests of mankind. This accomplished, even in small 
degree, the labor of the writer will be doubly recompensed. 



In the beginning of a controversy it is proper to state the 
real point in issu^. Mr. Ingersoll, as he discloses in his sec- 
ond essay, proposed to discuss the question : " Is all of the 



14 REPLY TO LAMBERT. 

Bible inspired?" He had a right to choose his ground and 
did so. The North American Review, however, changed the 
title of his articles. This fact is known to all who have read 
his rejoinder to Judge Black, for it is therein distinctly stated. 
I have seen fit, however, to follow the Father in his arguments 
wheresoever they lead. 



REPLY TO LAMBERT 



CHAPTER I. 

REPLY TO REV. LAMBERT's " INTRODUCTORY." 

Indecorous Language of Mr. Ingersoll — Father Lambert's Vulgar and Abusive 
Methods — " Physician, Heal Thyself" — The Promise to "Grant Nothing and 
to take Nothing for Granted," followed by the Substitution of Assertion for 
Proof— "Glib little Whiffets," and " Smirched Character." 

In his " Introductory," Father Lambert takes Mr. Ingersoll 
to task for having perpetrated gibe and jest, while complain- 
ing that his opponent had treated him with personal disre- 
spect. 

Lambert. — " You may outrage Christian sentiment, you 
may laugh and burlesque Moses and Christ, but you must be 
genteel, and polite, and nice when you speak of Mr. Inger- 
soll." 

Does the Father not see that in the discussion carried on 
between Judge Black and Mr. Ingersoll, the Christian religion, 
and neither Mr. Black nor Mr. Ingersoll, was on trial ? Moses 
— or whoever wrote the five books attributed to him — was 
also in the polemic *' dock," with the leader of the American 
Bar, as the Nezv York Herald ranked Judge Black (and we do 
not question this high estimate of his legal ability), for his 
counsel, and Col. Ingersoll as counter-advocate and accuser. 

The people of the universe composed the jury. Let not an 
appeal to outraged *' Christian sentiment " estop free, fair, and 
full investigation. We need not fear error '* when truth is 

(15) 



1 6 REPLY TO Lambert's 

left free to combat it." How could Mr. IngersoU defend his 
positions at all if handicapped by a sentiment he deems 
spurious, and without shocking the feelings of those whose 
" sentiments " have been ingrained into their soul's soul? If 
he dispute the authority of the Catholic Church he shocks 
Catholic sentiment; if the doctrines of Calvin he outrages 
Presbyterian sentiment. Yet this may be done, vigorously 
done, without the least reflection on the character or sincerity 
of an opponent. But if the example be so pernicious, why 
does the Father follow it and even outstrip his adversary in a 
race so ignoble ? 

Lambert. — " Mr. IngersoU found the legitimate field of wit 
and drollery preoccupied by Artemus Ward, Mark Twain, 
and others, with whom he could not compete. He sought 
new fields and, with a reckless audacity, selects that which the 
civilized world has always held sacred — Religion." 

We ask, what religion ? Whose religion ? Religion in the 
abstract or some particular form of faith ? If religion per se 
be a sacred thing, why should the Christian propagandist lay 
rude hands upon the heathen's idol, or defame the religions of 
Zoroaster, Gautama, and Confucius — religions ennobled by 
many sound doctrines and pure moral precepts? What right 
have we, logical or otherwise, in an argument with a dissenter, 
to assttme our own religion as true — to elevate ourselves on 
theological stilts and imperiously demand a deference for our 
faith that is equally due to every creed which is honestly pro- 
fessed by intelligent men ? Negation is often entitled to as 
much respect as affirmation. In regard to theological ques- 
tions the chances in its favor are as a thousand to one ; for we 
are assured that there can be but one true religion. If so, all 
others are spurious and false. Blame not the traveller who, in 
this interminable wilderness of beliefs, hesitates, and doubts, 
and distrusts his guide, while confident voices from every side 



"notes on ingersoll." 17 

assure him that he is being led on to certain ruin. " Have 
faith," says the guide. "Whose faith?" asks the pilgrim. 
" My faith, My faith, My faith," answer a thousand voices, 
with ever increasing emphasis. What can he do ? He has 
but one alternative: either to use his own judgment with the 
aid of the best light he can obtain, or submit to be lead 
through darkness, he knows not where. 

Lambert. — "All this time while he has been combining the 
professions of the philosopher, the humorist, and the ghoul, 
he has talked sweetly of delicacy, refinement, sentiment, 
feeling, honor bright, etc. All this time he has delighted in 
tearing, and wounding, and lacerating the hearts, and faith, 
and feelings of those by whose tolerance he is permitted to 
outrage the common sense and sentiment of Christendom." 

We ask, is a faith, which is worth being preserved, liable to 
be torn, and wounded, and lacerated by some one who doubts, 
and by doubting damns himself? Oh! tender, brittle, fickle 
faith ! 

Again, are the hearts of the faithful lacerated by the gos- 
pel of love, which affirms that a God of justice and mercy in- 
finite never could have justified slavery or polygamy — the 
butchery of children, nor the consignment of captive maidens 
to a brutal soldiery ? Or, is the doctrine of an eternal hell 
so sweet and savory that its negation wounds and discomfits 
the hosts of Israel ? May we not, without profanity, hope 
that between parent and child, husband and wife, there is no 
eternal barrier — between loving souls no spanless chasm ? By 
such hopes are fond hearts rent in twain and Christian senti- 
ment defiled ? 

You say it is by the " tolerance " of those whose feelings 
he outrages that he is permitted to speak his thoughts. No, 
Father, though a vile tyranny has popularized the words, 
there is no such thing as " religious toleration." 



1 8 REPLY TO Lambert's 

I worship the God of my choice, or none at all, if I hke, 
not by tolerance but by right — a right inherent, inalienable ; 
and, though not conferred, yet guaranteed us by our noble 
national and state constitutions. I know full well if theology 
could issue its mandates unrebuked by law that the scenes of 
past ages would be re-enacted. We rejoice in our deliverance 
from the bondage of superstition and its inquisitorial tor- 
ments ; but in the exercise of our liberty we enjoy only our 
rights, grudgingly accorded — but all our own. 

If, as alleged, Mr. Ingersoll has advanced nothing new and 
his arguments are borrowed from Paine, Bolingbroke and 
others, why has such a bevy of writers, priests and preachers, 
essayed replies to his writings and lectures ? 

Please do not tell us what Celsus, Porphyry and Julian have 
said — names very unfamiliar to the popular ear — but redeem 
your pledge, granting " nothing, and taking nothing for 
granted." Having thus promised, in the next paragraph you 
speak of the "proofs of Christianity to be found in the writ- 
ings of the great Christian philosophers and theologians," and 
you affirm that they never have been successfully answered. 
Perhaps not ; but it seems that you have taken something for 
granted at the outset, and have substituted assertion for proof. 
You indeed say, ** it is not Christianity that is on trial but 
Mr. Ingersoll's article," but forget not that that article neces- 
sarily involves the authenticity and credibility of the Old and 
New Testament Scriptures, and the intelligent investigator 
will desire to read, not a bald assertion that Mr. Ingersoll has 
been or can be refuted, but the refutation itself. But, in truth, 
are there no nczv issues raised in the present which were un- 
known to the past ? Were those ancient men, Anaximander, 
Epicurus, Lucretius, or the more modern writers, such as 
Hobbes, Bolingbroke and Paine, acquainted with the discov- 
eries of modern science, such as the great antiquity of pre- 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 1 9 

historic man, his progress from a barbarous state to higher 
and still higher grades of civilization ; or the negation, even 
by Christian geologists, of a universal deluge ? Astronomy, 
geology, philology, paleontology and comparative anatomy 
have recently opened up rich treasuries of scientific fact which 
have a direct bearing upon the plenary inspiration of Scrip- 
ture, and which Christian apologists cannot afford to ignore. 

Yet the easiest way to gain a logical victory, in the eyes 
of the unthinking many, is to insist that an opponent is want- 
ing in originality and has been answered successfully, away 
back in the world's history, by men of unpronounceable names, 
and of whom only the scholarly kw have either read or heard. 
This cheap method of disputation is not suited to the require- 
ments of the present age. But after centuries of repetition 
of effete dogmas, supported by arguments corroded by an- 
tique rust, does it become theologians to cavil about a want 
of originality in those who controvert their teachings ? 

Notwithstanding your promise to " analyze with careful 
scrutiny every statement he adduces, every inference he 
draws," you have failed to give even a fair synopsis of the 
arguments you attempt to confute. 

But why indulge in wanton abuse? Why employ epithets 
vile ? Foul words give no weight to statement ; no point to 
argument. 

If, indeed, you have, as you claim, exterminated your ad- 
versary ; if you have " smirched his character" beyond rehabili- 
tation, let pity constrain you. Reverend Sir, from further ex- 
ercise of the severity of your wrath. Rather let your anger 
be stirred against the " glib little whiffets of his shallow 
school," while he, dejected and dismayed, sulks in his tent. 



20 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 



CHAPTER II. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER L 

Priestly Metaphysics, according to which God, Time, Space and Matter must be 
Annihilated ! — Freedom of the Will — Unsolved Problems. 

In the first chapter of the " Notes " we are treated to a 
metaphysical disquisition. 

IngcrsolL — " The universe, according to my idea, is, always 
was and forever will be. . . . It is the one eternal being — 
the only thing that ever did, does, or can exist." 

Lambert. — " When you say * according to my idea ' you 
leave the inference that this theory of an eternal universe 
never occurred to the mind of man until your brain acquired 
its full development." 

How trenchant this logic! how irresistible its conclusion! 
The words, " according to my idea," are here said to imply 
primitive conception. Because I say " I have an idea," I leave 
the inference that no one ever conceived the same idea before. 

Let us try the good priest's logic on himself According 
to his idea the Catholic Church is infallible, the priest can for- 
give sins,* and so of every doctrine of his church. TJicrcforc 
his brain first conceived these dogmas. True our Reverend 

* I had never supposed that forgiveness of sins by the priest was a do^ma 
of the Roman Catholic Church, until I heard Father Lambert distinctly state 
the fact in a lecture delivered by him in Oil City, Pa. Before that time I had 
often occasion to defend his church against this charge, alleging that the priest 
claimed simply the power to declare, ex officio, forgiveness of sins already par- 
doned by Almighty God. 



"notes on INGERSOLL. 21 

Father may claim that his faith is more than an " idea," but 
this only shows the superior modesty of Mr. IngersoU, Par- 
don me, this is wasting powder on too small game. No refer- 
ence to the Father, but to the sophistical averment he inadver- 
tently let slip. 

The remark made by Mr. IngersoU was merely prefatory, 
and given to indicate his position to his adversary, and is 
followed in the next paragraph by the modest confession, 
" of course, upon a question like this, nothing can be abso- 
lutely known." 

But let us come down to " hard-pan " and examine the 
Father's metaphysics. He says, " You [IngersoU] affirm 
the eternity of matter. On this I reason thus : 

" That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite be- 
cause, if eternal, it can have nothing to limit it. 

" But that which is infinite must be infinite, in every 
way [italics ours]. If limited in any way, it would not be 
infinite. 

" Now, matter is limited. It is composed of parts, and 
composition is limitation. It is subject to change, and change 
involves limitation. Change supposes succession, and there 
can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore limi- 
tation. Thus far we are borne out by reason, experience, 
and common sense." 

Waiving the question of the power of " experience " to 
bear us out in our ideas of the eternal, the infinite, and the 
illimitable, is it true that that which is infinite must be infinite 
in " every way ? " Every way is indefinite, but let us suppose 
it means in every attribute. 

The human soul at death. Scripture being the judge, starts 
on an eternal pilgrimage. It never dies. Its life is eternal life. 

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: 
but the righteous into life eternal." — Matt. xxv. 46. 



22 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

Yet who believes that the human soul is, in any of its at- 
tributes, equal to that Spirit which religious conception por- 
trays as omnipotent, perfect in holiness, in justice, mercy and 
truth, whose days are from everlasting to everlasting ? Yet 
as to infinity of duration fiitiLVe, the lives of angels and men 
are co-extensive with the life of Deity. So the Scriptures 
teach us. Space, which has been aptly defined as that which 
has its centre everywhere and its circumference nowhere, is 
infinite expansion but nothing more. It is therefore limited 
by unity of attribute. So of time: it is infinite duration 
only. 

A line infinite in length, extending through space, may be 
imagined, or symbolized, as readily as we may symbolize 
space or eternal duration regarded as the sum total of in- 
finite diurnal successions. Yet the supposed line would have 
infinite length without appreciable breadth or thickness. 
Therefore though infinite in one respect yet finite in others. 

The same fallacy is perpetrated in the scquitur\o the above : 
" Matter is limited and therefore finite, and if finite in an}-- 
thing, finite in everything; and if finite in everything, there- 
fore finite in time, and therefore not eternal." 

Does the good priest not see, his premises being admitted, 
that with one breath he has blown away the whole fabric of 
theology with its hope of heaven and fear of hell ? How dear 
to the Christian believer is his hope of the resurrection of the 
body ! But we are told : *' Matter is limited and therefore fi- 
nite, and if finite in anything, finite in everything; and if finite 
in everything, therefore finite in time, and therefore not eter- 
nal." The matter composing our bodies, according to the 
" Notes," is finite in that it had a beginning, is a composite, 
and is subject to change. Therefore finite in everything it 
cannot be eternal, but must fade away like the shadows 
which flit before us and are no more. So also of the 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 23 

glorified body of the Lord. More painful still, according to 
priestly logic, God himself, with matter, time, and space, must 
cease to be. It will scarcely be denied that even he is limited 
by the attributes of his own being. Again, it is inconceiv- 
able that he could annihilate space, create a being equal to 
himself, or make the diameter of a circle equal to its circum- 
ference. Dr. Adam Clark, in his posthumous work on theol- 
ogy, says that God can do anything which does not involve 
contradiction or absurdity. How we are to determine what 
proposition involves contradiction or absurdity he has not in- 
formed us. How he knows that the creation of matter out of 
nothing — which is the old way of putting it — does not involve 
contradiction and absurdity we are not told. To our mind 
the act is inconceivable. Be that as it may, here are limita- 
tions even to divine power, and, " if limited in any way," he 
cannot be infinite ; if not infinite, not eternal ; and, if not 
eternal, he must cease to be ! 

The Pentateuch portrays God as of human form, after 
Avhose image man was made. "And they saw the God of 
Israel," etc. — Exodus xxiv. lo. "And the Lord said. Behold, 
there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock : 
And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I 
will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with 
my hand while I pass by : And I will take away my hand, 
and thou shalt see my back parts : but my face shall not be 
seen." — Exodus xxxiii. 21, 22, 23. 

This was the anthropomorphic idea of early history. Anon, 
since men's ideas became less gross, God has been viewed as 
a Spirit, whom the heaven of heavens could not contain. In- 
terpretation has grown gray in attempt to conform these two 
opposite ideas to each other without disturbing the harmony 
of Scripture. The method of reconciliation is this : the ad- 
vanced idea being accepted, the older and less spiritual one 



24 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

must mean the same, though, according to the plain words of 
Scripture, it means the very reverse. 

Lambert. — " If this universe of matter alone exists, the 
mind, intellect, or soul must be matter or a form of matter," 
etc. 

Certainly, but this is but to affirm that all that is is all that 
is. But those vi^ho hold that matter always existed may yet 
claim that within its folds were enwrapped all of the phe- 
nomena of past, present, and future time, including animal 
and vegetable life, gravitating forces, etc. No one, so far as I 
know, regards thought as a material substance, although born 
of materiality, or expressed from its inter-relations. So also 
of gravity. 

But the Father, from words unsaid by his opponent, depicts 
fearful consequences ; such as, that the free agency of man is 
destroyed, and that he becomes a mere pile of drift floating 
up and down the ocean of life whither wind and current may 
carry him. 

Lambert. — "The forces that govern matter are invariable. 
From this it follows, that every thought of the philosopher, 
every calculation of the mathematician, every imagination and 
fancy of the poet, are mere results of material forces, entirely 
independent of the individuals conceiving them." 

How they can be " entirely independent of the individuals 
conceiving them," in any rational view of the case, appears to 
us an insoluble mystery. Perhaps, however, the Father in- 
tended to have said, entirely independent of the volition of the 
individuals conceiving them. 

But will it be affirmed that mind, in its conceptions and the 
moral results which follow them, is entirely capricious ? That 
it is not governed by laws germane to its own nature ? Were 
one sufficiently skilled in mental mathematics, and knew all 
of the factors which go to make up a moral or intellectual 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 25 

problem in relation to human thought and action, could he 
not predict results ? Is not man, when free to act, controlled 
by the strongest motive or motives? If the individual nature 
of a man impose no limits upon choice, how can wc predict 
that if Washington had lived another year, conditions having 
been favorable to such result, he might not have betrayed his 
country ? The truth is, in the universe of mind there are 
many unsolved problems ; and this, the question of volition, 
is one of them. The action of mind is subtle, and the data 
from which we would judge of its attributes and essence are 
wont to elude our grasp. We know something of mind from 
what is called self-consciousness — something from intercom- 
munication with the thoughts and feelings of others, but of 
that something those who are the wisest dogmatize the least. 



26 REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER III. 



REPLY TO CHAPTER II. 



Law — Laws and Nonentities — An Insane Conclusion — The Inductive and De- 
ductive Processes of Reasoning — Witches, Heretics and Unbaptized Infants — 
Cruehy of Dogmatism — Small Criticisms — Definition of Law, etc. 

In Chapter II. of the " Notes " we are met by this surprising 
declaration : 

Lambert. — " The idea of law in general is, and must be, 
prior to the idea of particular laws." 

Our wonder at this postulate is heightened when we read 
in subsequent chapters of the *' Notes " that justice, larceny, 
industry, prosperity, etc., are mere abstractions, and that ab- 
stractions are nonentities and " have none but abstract con- 
sequences, which are no consequences at all." Yet law is no 
less an abstraction than justice. Then we must conclude that 
we gain a knowledge of particular laws by means of a non- 
entity '* which exists intuitively in the mind ! " To avoid this 
insane conclusion we take issue with the Father, and say, 
that we do not usually formulate an abstraction, nor avail 
ourselves of one already formulated or intuitively existing in 
the mind, and then, by travelling downward, discover the 
differentiations of its actions. Suppose we see for the first 
time that molten lead when precipitated from a shot-tower, 
rain-drops falling from the clouds, and the dew-drops pendent 
on blades of grass, all assume a globular form. We inquire, 
why is this ? and the inquiry leads to the discovery of a ten- 
dency in all liquid substances to draw towards a common 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL-" 2/ 

centre. This uniform tendency or apparently inherent princi- 
ple we name " attraction." We look further and note a ten- 
dency in liquids to rise in a tube ; that, contrary to its usual 
action to descend towards the earth, water rises through porous 
substances, such as sponges, sugar, etc. We name this principle 
which so inheres in matter, and produces this effect, " attrac- 
tion " also ; for, though it differs from the former kind, it is 
akin to it, as it results from a supposed affinity of the particles 
of matter for each other. 

Hence arises our conception of what we term the laws of 
attraction of various kinds ; i. e., the rules or modes of action 
governing inanimate matter under certain conditions. When 
we further see that all nature is controlled by principles of 
action, modified only by changes of relation and condition, 
we arise to a conception of law in its abstract sense. Thus we 
ascend from effect to cause, from the special to the universal. 
This is known as the Baconian or inductive process, though 
formulated by Aristotle, and employed by child and sage 
alike, ever since thinking man essayed a solution of the mys- 
teries of the universe. 

" We say," says the Father, " a particular law is a law be- 
cause it corresponds with the foinji of law which exists in the 
human mind." 

If by " form of law" be meant the plasticity and innate 
adaptability of the mind to receive impressions of facts and 
principles relating to the universe external to itself, we are in 
fall accord with the last quoted dictum. There is a concord- 
ance between those things external to man and his internal or 
spiritual being — a relation analogous to that which exists 
between his body and the food he takes to nourish it. But 
we fear this theory will be found destructive of the fabric the 
Father is attempting to support. 

Two kinds of argument may be employed to reach a con- 



28 REPLY TO Lambert's 

elusion or prove a fact. We have referred to one, the inductive. 
Tliis kind always begins to rear its logical structure by laying 
its foundation on the solid substratum of fact — building up- 
wards until the last embellishment is given to the golden- 
pointed spire of truth. 

The other, the deductive process, is more metaphysical and 
begins by assuming that the mind is a microcosm — a miniature 
universe — and hence, that there is a correspondence between 
all things external to man and his intellectual and moral 
attributes. Its appeal is to consciousness, feeling, affection, etc. 

Both modes are legitimate, and to the honor of the deduc- 
tive be it said that by it have been anticipated certain grand 
expositions of scientific facts, first deductively realized and pro- 
claimed, and afterwards experimentally demonstrated. Of 
course this method lacks the certainty of the inductive and is 
more liable to abuse. 

By the inductive method we are taught that fire will burn, 
and that heat, at a given temperature, will reduce certain 
metals. By it we know that the tendency of crime is to the 
loss of fortune and reputation. But if we see for the first time 
a strong man maltreat an infant our nature revolts. Why ? 
The concord that exists between the external and internal 
is rudely shocked, and we instinctively rebel against the act 
of cruelty. So, when told that witches should be burned and 
heretics tortured and slain ; that there is a hell prearranged 
for adults, and a limbo for babies born out of reach of the 
baptismal font; the human heart, when not obdurated by a 
soulless theology, abhors the teachings. W^itches — those non- 
existent creatures of superstitious fancy — burned in the per- 
sons of innocent men, women and children who, cowed by a 
faith so dark that the Egyptian plague of darkness was sun- 
light to it, confessed their guilt. And heretics, roasted on 
the gridiron of persecution. Think of it! 



"notes on ingersoll. 29 

And the Infant who may never reach the confines of heaven to 
say to the mother who bore it, " Farewell, mother; the God of 
teitder mercy has forbidden it ; never again shall I be enfolded 
in thy loving embrace to the heart whose pulsations fed me 
with the life-current." The soul of humanity sickens and 
revolts at doctrines so hideous, because they shock the moral 
and affectional harmonies of that nature ** which God has 
created for nobler purposes " than the acceptance of the doc- 
trine of eternal hate. 

All honor to the deductive philosophy, for it teaches us 
that if you pile syllogisms mountain-high, and dogmas to the 
infinite, the human heart will still be loyal to love. That the 
mother will yet cherish her babe, and if need be invade limbo 
to find it: though her first embrace should be the last, yet 
would eternal raptures seem concentred in one moment of 
maternal joy. 

But Mr. Ingersoll says, " Water always runs down hill," 
and the Father protests because water sometimes evaporates 
and goes up into the clouds. Fire also demoralizes it; even 
vegetables seduce it by capillary attraction. We might add 
that, perchance, a servant maid carries a bucket of water up 
hill; therefore, water does not always run down hill. Surely 
this baby is too small to whip. But suppose we retort by a 
quibbling process quite as rational. 

Lambert. — " The forces that govern matter are invariable." 
If so what becomes of miracles ? The Father no doubt in- 
tended to be understood as having affirmed that the forces of 
matter are invariable unless when interfered with by some 
superior force. 

He wrote with sufficient precision ; for no one can, while 
announcing general principles, stop to note every particular 
exception, and no rational man expects it. 

Lambert. — "A stone thrown up falls." Yet it may not; it 



30 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

may find lodgment in its upward course. This is ** small talk," 
and used only to show the dignity of a philosopher and divine 
who forces us, by parallel comparison, to show that priestly 
arguments are lighter than " the stuff which dreams are made 
of." 

Issue is also taken on the definition of law. Perhaps one 
has not yet been framed which is not liable to justly adverse 
criticism. 

Blackstone defines law as a rule of action, and as applying 
to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational 
or irrational. I might define natural law, in its general sense, 
as a governing principle or force. Yet I do not believe the 
common sense of the world will remain suspended, while 
Blackstone, Ingersoll, the good priest, and my humble self 
contend about a word which all rational men understand, but 
which no one may be able to define with entire exactness. 

But, pray, consider the definition of the laws of nature as 
recorded in the " Notes." 

Lambert. — "The laws of nature, then, as commonly under- 
stood, are the u7iiforin action of natiwal forces expressed t?i 
words y 

So we are to infer that if men were speechless, and could 
not by writing express natural forces in words, the laws of 
nature would be non est, and the universe plunged in chaos ! 
The good priest has only confounded law with our concep- 
tions of it, as ** expressed in words." 

Hamlet, it would seem, w^as not amiss in his answer to 
Polonius. " What do you read, my lord ? " " Words, words, 
words." A pot-pie might be defined as a composite of dough, 
meat, butter, pepper and salt, expressed in zvords. The poor 
mute most forego the delicious repast. 



"notes on ingersoll." 31 



CHAPTER IV. 



REPLY TO CHAPTER III. 



The Black Flag — More Metaphysics — "Pure Act" — Can we Know that Goo 
Exists? — Difference between Knowledge, Belief and Opinion — Human Igno- 
rance — The Right to Express an Honest Opinion — The Modesty of Science — 
Moral Right and Legal Right — Martyrs to Truth; the Debt we Owe Them. 

The Father, in his " touch of metaphysics," his " tail-piece," 
etc. — choice diction for a priest ; but so he heads his chapter 
— reminds us of the Scotchman's definition of metaphysics. 
" When," said he, " a man talks that to another which the 
other man don't understand and he don't understand himself, 
that is metaphysics." 

Our Father at the outset hoisted the black flag. He would 
neither give nor take quarter. Nothing was to be taken for 
granted on either side. Let us see how well the promise has 
been kept. 

Ingersoll. — "To put God back of the universe compels us 
to admit that there was a time when nothing existed except 
God." 

Lambert, — " It compels us to admit nothing of the kind. 
The eternal God can place an eternal act. His creative act 
could, therefore, be co-eternal with his being. The end of the 
'act — that is, creation — could be co-extensive with the eternal 
act, and therefore eternal. To deny this is to affirm that there 
could be a moment when the eternal and omnipotent God 
could not act, which is contrary to Christian teaching." 

But what you call " Christian teaching" is the very thing 



32 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

in controversy. What right have you to assume the point in 
dispute as true? This is not only taking something, but 
everything, for granted. But you say, " the eternal God can 
place an eternal act." Reader, what is the placing of an eter- 
nal act ? It is a conundrum, which we give up and pass to 
you. 

" To put God back of the universe" is certainly to affirm 
that in time or order of being he antedates the universe. If 
this be not so, what becomes of the dogma that God created 
matter "out of nothing?" Can you conceive of such a 
creative act, without a time or point in infinite duration when 
it was performed ? Try it. 

We are told in the "Notes" that, "before creation was, time 
was not." This as poetry may pass, but as a fact it is incon- 
ceivable. But if true, how do we know it to be true ? We 
are also informed that reason teaches that the universe could 
have been created from all eternity. Whose reason ? What 
grounds have you for saying that reason teaches such an 
incomprehensible proposition ? Create means to make, to 
bring into being. How, then, can anything be made or 
brought into being " from all eternity?" To say that God 
could create anything the existence of which was co-eternal 
with his own being, is to affirm the possibility of God having 
created himself It is said that God is self-existent, but never 
has theology been plunged in the delirium of nonsense so far 
as to affirm that God was his own creator. But if it be true 
that the universe was always created, it must have existed 
*' from the beginning." That is, there never was a time when 
it was not. Precisely what Mr. IngersoU asserts. How 
pleasant it is to see extremes meet ! to behold the good 
Father and Mr. IngersoU, as in this case, clasp each other in 
logical embrace. " We may be happy yet." 

We are told that " God is pure act, the source of origin of 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 33 

all activity and life." How there can be " pure act," or any- 
other act without an actor, is another riddle to which we 
succumb. 

When the Father says that " Kant held that we can have 
absolute certainty of nothing ; zuhich is equivalent to a denial 
of botJi God and the universe'^ (the italics are ours), we dissent. 
Uncertainty is neither affirmation nor denial. 

Lambert. — " We know not God absolutely, but we know 
certainly that he is." 

I do not deny his existence, but can we knoiv that he exists ? 
Bishop Alexander Campbell, who, if not the founder, was the 
" head-light " of that church of worthy people known as 
" Christians " or ** Disciples," of whom Judge Black said, " I 
never stood before as great a man," said : ''Knowledge comes 
to us through the senses ; belief from evidence presented to 
the mind ; opinions are the result of our reasonings." I 
quote from the memory of readings of thirty years ago, and 
though I may not do entire justice to the language of the 
grand old Christian warrior, I feel certain that I faithfully 
reflect his meaning. 

If, then, knowledge comes to us through the senses, unless 
there be a sixth sense, how can we knozu that God is, even 
though to us our belief be the equivalent of knowledge? 

Ingersoll. — " W^hat we know of the infinite is almost in- 
finitely limited; but little as we know, all have an equal right 
to give their honest thought." 

Lambert. — " Has any man the right, common sense being 
the judge, to talk about that of which his knowledge is almost 
infinitely limited ? " 

Yes ; but in return we inquire, is not the knowledge of 
every one, yea, the combined knowledge of all men of all time, 
"almost infinitely limited" in regard to that infinity which is 
above, below and around us ? Infinity ! we name thee, but 



34 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

know thee not. With thine all-comprehensive expanse, thy 
circHng worlds, and blazing suns, and microscopic wonders, 
and mysteries of life and spirit, how little, infinitely little, can 
we know of thee at best ! Newton with his peerless intellect, 
after a lifetime of devotion to science, in view of what he knew 
as compared with the great unknown, likened himself to a 
child standing by the margin of the sea and toying with the 
pebbles upon the beach. This bespoke the modesty of true 
science. Let theology imitate its humility if it desire to gain 
or retain the confidence of thinking men. But because New- 
ton confessedly knew so little, should he not have spoken at 
all ? Shall only those speak who arrogate to themselves the 
perfection of knowledge ? If so, the miracle of old shall 
repeat and multiply itself, and asses shall speak while wise 
men remain silent. 

Lambert. — "All may have an equal right to give their honest 
thoughts, but none have the right to give their honest thoughts 
on all subjects and under all circumstances." 

Certainly not ; and no one has claimed such a right. But 
why does the Father blend things which have with things 
which have not been said, and then give a sweeping denuncia- 
tion of the " pool ? " Why tie a live man to a corpse, and, 
because the corpse should be buried, dump the living and the 
dead in a common grave? Why does the Father lead his 
thousands of readers, who never have and never will read 
Ingersoll, to believe that he has uttered words and sentiments 
which he has never said nor thought ? Is truth so weak that 
it is necessary for its advocates to defend it by false implica- 
tions, which charity and politeness alone constrain us from 
calling wanton ? Again — 

Lambert. — "The honesty of a thought does not give weight, 
or importance, or truth to it." 

No one has affirmed that the honesty of a thought makes 



"notes on ingersoll. 35 

that thought true, though in many respects it gives weight 
and importance to it. As to him who conceives it, it deter- 
mines his moral right to utter it, and stamps him, in some 
degree, as a truthful man or a liar. 

Lambert. — " Thought must be judged with reference to its 
truth, and not with reference to the honesty of him who 
thinks it." 

Granted; but who is to be the ultimate judge of its truth? 

Lambert. — ** This plea of honesty in thinking is a justification 
of every error or crime, for we must, in the very nature of the 
'case, take the thinker's word for the honesty of his thought." 

Not always ; for his acts may give the lie to his words. 
But what is the Father warring with, and what is his doctrine 
on the subject of " free thought ? " Mr. Ingersoll has said 
that we know little of the infinite, but that all have an equal 
right to express their honest thoughts on the subject Does 
the Father deny this proposition ? Can he do so without 
laying his logical axe at the very root of the tree of religious 
liberty ? Such denial would imply that the fires of the inquisi- 
tion are only smouldering, and are ready to break forth into 
a flame whenever and wherever bigotry becomes the ally of 
physical power. 

Lambert. — " The right to give an honest thought implies 
the right to realize that thought in action and habit." 

Here two distinct things are confounded ; namely, moral 
right and legal right. Which is meant ? The moral right to 
do what one conceives to be a duty can only be denied by 
affirming that a man is morally right in refusing to do what 
he believes to be right, and in doing what he believes to be 
wrong. Guilt may be incurred by insufficient examination in 
regard to the moral quality of thoughts and acts, for no man 
has the moral right to neglect opportunities of enlightenment; 
but can any one affirm that a man should do what he thinks 



36 • REPLY TO Lambert's 

is wrong:, or refrain from doinc: an act which his conscience 
tells him he should do? The solution of the apparent diffi- 
culty is this : the moral nature of an act is not determined by 
the mere act itself, but, measurably, by antecedent circum- 
stances and conditions, proximate and remote. 

Lambert. — *' I take it, then, that in claiming the right to 
give your honest thought you claim the right to promulgate 
that thought and put it in practice in the affairs of life." 

In a general way, yes. But what is the negation of this 
right ? Yoii have no right to proimdgate your Jionest tJwiigJit, 
nor put it in practice in the affairs of life I But if certain, 
honest thoughts we may and others we may not express, tell 
us, pray, those we have license to utter. 

The truth is we have no standard of right and wrong to 
which we can appeal without liability to error. You say, 
" yes, the will of God." But how do you determine that 
will ? Protestants say, by the Bible alone, and may add, in 
the words of Chillingworth, "the meaning of the Bible is the 
Bible." But has that " infallible rule " brought Protestants to 
an agreement in regard to important doctrines, or kept them 
from perpetrating deeds in the name of religian at which we 
shudder ? 

The Catholic rule is the Bible, tradition, etc., as interpreted 
by the church. But has that standard stayed the hand of 
persecution, or kept the church and its most honored adher- 
ents from perpetrating what are now regarded as the most re- 
volting crimes ? 

The standard of right and wrong, whatever rule may be 
professed, is in the mind and heart of man, and has varied 
from age to age as he advanced from the barbarism of the 
past to the comparative enlightenment of the present. As 
our knowledge of natural science, so our knowledge of the 
rules of morality, has come to us by slow degrees, and is not 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." ^J 

perfect yet. By the old rule it was right to cremate witches 
and heretics. Witches, under the present regime, are regarded 
as phantoms seen through the mists of ancient superstition, 
and heretics are considered as sincere even if mistaken men. 

If the tree be known by its fruit, what shall we say of ** in- 
fallible rules " as adopted and applied by the religious world ? 
They have nourished superstition, fostered moral cowardice, 
repressed knowledge, blinded the eyes of reason, inspired 
wars the most deadly and unrelenting, manacled the slave, 
crucified free thought, and put to death, by tortures the most 
cruel and ignominious, the noblest heroes who ever flashed 
the light of intelligence and moral truth, in their grandest as- 
pects, upon this benighted world. 

When through the vista of past centuries we view the 
darkness which enveloped humanity as with a pall in contrast 
with our present enlightenment, moral and intellectual ; when 
we see proscription giving way to freedom of thought, love 
supplanting hate, and holy deeds of charity performed between 
descendants of those who tortured and killed the living and 
dismembered the dead, we justly glory in the light of our 
present civilization. But let us not in self-gratulation forget 
those martyrs of the past, free in thought, truthful in word, 
holy in purpose, noble in deed, whose funeral pyres, ignited 
by the hand of persecution, created to so great an extent that 
light which is the glory of the past, joy of the present, and 
hope of the future. 



38 REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER V. 

IN REPLY TO CHAPTER IV. 

The Common Scold — The Cotton of Catholicity — The Argument from " De- 
sign " — Eternal Succession of Being — Plurality of Gods — The Fall of Man — 
Is it Just that Animals should Endure Uncompensated Suffering because " In 
Adam's Fall we Sinned All ? " — Divine Mercy not a Sin-License. 

There is so much of the method of the common scold in 
the "Notes" that the task of review becomes an unpleasant 
one. 

Ingersoll. — *' It will not do to say that the universe is de- 
signed, and therefore there must be a designer." 

Listen to the profound comment of the Father : 

Lambert. — " Why not, if all have a right to give their honest 
thoughts?" 

Is such stuff the cotton of Catholicity with which it closes 
the ^yQ?> and stops the ears of its votaries ? Does not the 
Father knoiv that the words, " it will not do to say " imply 
only that it is not logical to say, but by no means that those 
who believe in the argument from design have no moral right 
to advance it ? 

I am not indisposed to admit that there is great force in this 
argument. John Stuart Mill advised the theist to stick to it 
as his most available defence against atheistic encroachment. 
Dr. James McCosh, who, in his work on *' Christianity and 
Positivism," gives one of the strongest presentations of the 
argument, referring to Mr. Mill's remark, says (I quote from 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 39 

memory), that, in this instance, he will follow the advice of an 
adversary. 

Still, the argument has its difficulties, as some of the most 
learned of the advocates of Christianity have admitted. 
Rather in a spirit of exposition than disputation I will mention 
some of them. Briefly stated the argument from design is 
this : the works of nature show design ; design implies a de- 
signer; hence God. Some have believed in an eternal suc- 
cession of being; and, unless disproved by science, it is diffi- 
cult to logically controvert the possibility of such succession. 

We can as readily apprehend the idea of a chain composed 
of successive links co-extensive with space as we can the in- 
finite extension of space itself. Again, the belief in a plurality 
of gods meets us as a doctrine held by some of the greatest 
minds of antiquity, and which in former times was believed in 
by the great majority of the ignorant and educated. Even the 
Jews believed that the heathen gods were real deities, though 
far inferior to Jehovah. Christian theology, also, affirms that 
there are three Gods, co-equal and infinite in every divine at- 
tribute, although declaring that the Three, in some inexplic- 
able sense, are one. But in the statement of this doctrine 
and its consequences Catholics and Protestants do not agree : 
the one holding that Mary was the Mother of God, the other 
repudiating this dogma. Nor is this divergence of belief 
barren of important differences; for, if the Catholic be correct, 
the Protestant is withholding praise from one to whom rever- 
ence is due as unto the next to God in glory and honor; 
while, if the Protestant is right, Mariolatry is idolatry. 

Ingersoll. — "Was there no design in having an infinite de- 
signer? " 

Lambert. — " None whatever, because there can be nothing 
back of an eternal designer." 

Certainly not ; but the " eternal " part of it is the very ques- 



40 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

tion in debate. Thus is assumed, by one dash of the pen, the 
point in dispute. 

higersoll. — " It is somewhat difficult to discern the design 
or the benevolence in so making the world that billions of 
animals live on the agonies of others." 

Lambe7^t. — " Until you prove that God so made the world 
that billions of animals live on the agonies of others, you are 
not called upon to discern design or benevolence in this ago- 
nizing state of things. It does not follow because agony and 
suffering exist that God designed it to be so. It is for you to 
prove that God designed this suffering before you should at- 
tribute it to him. You should be just — even to God." 

Can it be possible that Father Lambert fails to see the issue 
raised by Mr. Ingersoll's remark? or that he is ignorant of the 
scientific facts to which he alludes ? or — no, he would not 
intentionally mislead those whom it is his duty to point heaven- 
ward. Therefore I say — for I think I understand the Father 
— that he attributes all of the suffering in the animal kingdom 
to the primal sin of Adam. If not, if God did not design it, to 
what does he impute that suffering ? We find from the con- 
formation of the teeth, stomach and other structural parts of 
animals, that some were made (Zd^xmw ox ow?>, flesh-caters ; others 
herbivorouSj/'r^^^'^ri" on plants and trees ; yet thousands of years 
before man inhabited this globe, we are told by those who 
have delved the deepest into this " rock-ribbed earth " and 
brought to the light most of its hidden secrets, that flesh has 
nurtured flesh, torn by the stronger from the bones of weaker 
animals — the herbivorous becoming the victims of the carniv- 
orous, who devoured also the weaker of their own species. 
The scales of fishes and bones of animals found in the excre- 
ments of extinct animals prove these facts beyond scientific 
doubt. 

Had we the ability, we could not in an essay like this in- 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 4I 

corporate a treatise on geology or paleontology ; but we have 
asserted only facts known to the merest tyros in these depart- 
ments, and asserted by men the best informed in these sciences, 
and of almost every grade of religious faith. Why should 
Christian teachers ignore these facts, and attempt to brush 
them away by the force of an obscure sentence? 

If design can be seen in nature, the teeth, stomach, etc., 
of animals indicate that they were oiiginally intended to feed 
upon each other — the weaker and more innocent to be de- 
voured by the stronger and more savage. Such is the order 
of nature, and ever has been, according to the " testimony of 
the rocks." If, then, death and suffering did exist before hu- 
man transgression (as science teaches us it did), why claim 
that, contrary to all analogy, tJie effect goes before its cause ? 
Or, if it be true that there is one exception, to tl>e otherwise 
universal law, that the cause in the order of time precedes its 
effect, it is incumbent on those who assert it to prove it — and 
that by the most irrefragable evidence. 

Lambert.- — " God made man a free agent. . . . But man 
abused the gift of liberty, and, in so doing, produced dis- 
cord in universal harmony. . . . He betrayed it [his trust] and 
thus became a victim of the disorder he himself produced. 
The agent is responsible to his principal, and a failure to per- 
form the duties assigned him brings upon him punishment 
and disgrace." 

Be it so, and, waiving the hardship to prattling infancy, in 
that the child must suffer for sin committed six thousand 
years before it was born, does it seem just that dumb brutes 
should endure uncompensated suffering because 

" In Adam's fall 
We sinned all ? " 

You may be right in your picture of a world where all 



42 REPLY TO LAxMBERTS 

things dark and mysterious to us here will there be illumined 
by heavenly light. I hope so. 

It is said that Agassiz believed in the immortality of fishes 
— at worst a beautiful conceit, which showed the goodness of 
the great man's soul. But no heaven could we covet where 
we must lose the identity of self — forget the past with its mem- 
ories of moral battles fought and won — of friendships so dear 
and loves so holy that heaven would not be heaven if it de- 
nied their continuance. Picture not to us, ** beyond the part- 
ing and the greeting," a heaven darkened and made desolate 
by the absence of loved ones, in their eternal banishment 
made translucent by the lurid glare of hell. Those of us 
dissenters who revere a Supreme Spirit bow not to a Moloch, 
with fiery outstretched arms, waiting to receive helpless vic- 
tims consigned to him by soulless dogma ; but a being 
whose love extendeth to all, and whose "mercy endureth for- 
ever." 

Yet let no one have the temerity or ingratitude to construe 
that mercy into a sin-license. Suffering in the moral world 
is the child of violated law, and, if the soul survive the decay 
of the body, we cannot conceive why God is under greater ob- 
ligation, or is more willing, irrespective of our own efforts, to 
save us from the consequences of our sins hereafter than in 
our present state. 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 43 



CHAPTER VI. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER V. 

Mr. Ingersoll's Reply to the Argument from " Design" — Sell-existence Alleged 
by Father Lambert to Imply the Infinity and Perfection of every Attribute; the 
Fallacy of the Doctrine — "Infinite Justice" a Redundant Expression; the 
Word Just not Logically Admitting of Degrees of Comparison — God Supposed 
to be Flattered by Complimentary Words — The Finite Cannot Measure the 
Infinite, but may Test its Nature and Quality — Opinion, Good or Bad, is 
Judgment. 

To do justice to Mr. Ingersoll, as well as to show how 
fragmentary are the Father's citations from him, I will quote, 
somewhat at length, Mr. Ingersoll's reply to the argument 
from design. I will do justice even to an infidel! 

Iiigcrsoll. — ** I know as little as any one else about the 
* plan ' of the universe; and as to the * design ' I know just as 
little. It will not do to say that the universe was designed, 
and therefore there must be a designer. There must first be 
proof that it was * designed.' It will not do to say the uni- 
verse has a * plan,' and then assert that there must have been 
an infinite Maker. The idea that a design must have a begin- 
ning and that a designer need not, is a simple expression of 
human ignorance. We find a watch, and we say : *So curious 
and wonderful a thing must have had a maker.' We find 
the watch-maker, and we say: 'So curious and wonderful 
a thing as man must have had a Maker.' We find God, and 
we say : * He is so wonderful that he must not have had a 
Maker.' 



44 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

"In other words, all things a little wonderful must have 
been created, but it is possible for something to be so won- 
derful that it always existed. One would suppose that just 
as the wonder increased the necessity for a Creator increased, 
because it is the wonder of the thing that suggests the design 
of creation. Is it possible that a designer exists from all 
eternity without a design ? Was there no design in having an 
infinite designer ? For me it is hard to see the plan or design 
in earthquakes and pestilences. It is somewhat difficult to 
discern the design or the benevolence in so making the world 
that billions of animals live only on the agony of others. The 
justice of God is not visible to me in the history of this 
world. When I think of the suffering and death, of the pov- 
erty and crime, of the cruelty and malice, of the heartlessness 
of this * design ' and ' plan,' where beak and claw and tooth 
tear and rend the quivering flesh of weakness and despair, I 
cannot convince myself that it is the result of infinite wisdom, 
benevolence and justice." 

In the brief excerpt which the Father quotes from the 
above, ** The justice of God is not visible to me in the history 
of this world," Mr. IngersoU only states an orthodox senti- 
ment, a sentiment proclaimed from the pulpit thousands of 
times every week. It accords with the teachings of Scrip- 
ture; it is the oft sad refrain of the songs of the modern Zion, 
and of afflicted, pious hearts everywhere. All say, " we know 
not why it is that sin defiles us, that sickness tortures us, and 
that death, cold, ghastly death, is the conqueror of all." But 
the Father, in his haste to vanquish his adversary, selects the 
passage of all others the least obnoxious to orthodox criti- 
cism. 

Lambert. — " If there is an infinite, self-existent being, he 
must, from his very nature, be infinite in everything; and, if 
in everything, infinite in his justice. To assert that he is not 



45 

infinitely just is to deny his existence, but your statement 
supposes his existence, and therefore grants his infinite 
justice." 

All this is mere assertion without attempt at proof. It is 
worse ; it is an unintelligible medley. Suppose we had never 
before heard of God, and were told for the first time that he is 
a self-existent, infinite being, would not our first inquiry be: 
" Infinite in what ? " If assured that he is infinite in every 
holy attribute, would we not further ask : ** How do you know 
it ? " The Scriptures do not deal in this kind of patristic logicj 
but refer us to the works of God, and to his providential care 
over his creatures, in attestation of his goodness, and to his 
punishment of vice and reward of virtue, as proof of his 
justice. But to dispose of the assertion that infinity of being 
combined with self-existence implies " infinite justice," we 
remark, that infinity can scarcely be predicated of justice, and 
it is doubtful whether any attribute can be properly de- 
scribed as infinite, which does not admit of degrees of com- 
parison. We cannot say with philosophical propriety — just, 
more just, most just. When we say just, we have expressed 
a quality or attribute in its fullness. Conventionally speaking, 
and for convenience, we employ the words " more just" and 
*' most just," as when we say, A is a more just judge than B ; 
or, as we say that one mathematician is more correct than an- 
other. But philosophical diction is not so indulgent to us ; 
for when we wish to draw an important conclusion by the use 
of words, we should employ them with regard to their strict 
meaning. But " infinite " is a word which strikes the popular 
mind as exceedingly eulogistic, and it can scarcely realize that 
when we call God just we have accorded to him as great 
praise as when we declare him "infinitely" just. Neither can 
any being be more than perfect. Therefore we ascribe to 
deity as complete and entire perfection when we sa\- that he 
is perfect as when we say that he is infinitely perfect. 



46 REPLY TO Lambert's 

We may concede the perfection of his every attribute, and 
aver that he is infinitely wise, infinitely glorious, etc. ; but to 
say that he is infinitely perfect or infinitely just is as redun- 
dant as to describe an object as infinitely round or infinitely 
square. We multiply words without addition of meaning 
when we say more than that one is round, the other square. 
No man is truthful who will tell one lie. He may approxi- 
mate truthfulness, but he is not completely, absolutely — in 
short, he is not truthful ; or, as one lexicon defines the word, 
he is not " wholly full of truth." In this definition the word 
** wholly " is superfluous. We read of infinite fullness. Can 
a vessel be more than full ? We so often confound poetical 
with philosophical diction; the figurative with the real; the 
double superlative of adoration and affection with the literal 
realities of fact, that we do injustice to both poetry and phi- 
losophy. 

Passing this, how do we know that self-existence necessi- 
tates the possession of any specific qualities, good or bad? 
The oldest man is not always the best or wisest, and neither 
power nor wisdom measures the justice of men ; why should 
they the ethics of deity? The truth is, fear constrains the 
theological world to adopt certain dogmatic and compli- 
mentary forms of expression when speaking of deity. Liken- 
ing the infinite to the finite — the human to the divine — it is 
supposed the vanity of God delights itself in adulatory phrases 
and in the self-abnegation of his subjects. That he is espe- 
cially glorified by the abasement and self-imposed torture of 
his creatures — such are the conceptions born of fear. 

Lambert. — " The finite cannot be the measure of the infinite. 
God's justice is infinite; the human mind is finite. Hence the 
latter cannot be the measure of the former." 

We are here told, " The finite cannot be the measure of the 
infinite." True, but it may test its nature and quality if it 



'notes on ingersoll. 47 

may not measure its extent. We know enough of space in- 
cluded between two material objects to render it inconceivable 
to us that space, in any part of the universe, can differ from it 
save in extent. 

You say that " God's justice is infinite ; " we admit its per- 
fection, but the question is whether the God of your conception 
is just. If we know aught of God we are compelled by the 
laws of our mental and moral being to judge him. If we say 
that he is righteous we pronounce judgment upon him, which, 
according to. the Father's logic, we cannot do, because the 
finite cannot judge the infinite. And if not, we can neither 
affirm nor deny his justice, nor any other of his attributes; 
and, with regard to his character, the human mind must ever 
remain in eqidlibrio. The Father (p. 43, 4th ed.) virtually 
concedes the right of examination but not of judgment. But 
it is apparent that if we have the right to think and examine 
any subject, it must be with a view to the formation of an 
opinion in regard to it, and opinion is judgment. 



48 REPLY TO LAMBERT'S 



CHAPTER VII. 



REPLY TO CHAPTER VL 



The Priest " Begs the Question " — Should we Pin our Faith to the Sleeves of 
Great Men? — The Spirit of Inquiry in the Air — Subtle and Ingenious Ar- 
gument from Brownson's Quarterly Review ; its Fallacy — Logic and Logical 
Quibbles — Good-bye to Metaphysics — Is the Bible Inspired ? 

Ingersoll. — " This question cannot be settled by saying 
that it would be a mere waste of time and space to enumerate 
the proofs that show that the universe was created by a pre- 
existent and self-conscious being." 

The learned priest takes issue with this statement and 
claims that Mr. Ingersoll is refuted by his, the Father's, aver- 
ment, that the books are full of refutations of Mr. Insrersoll's 
arguments, and of proofs positive of the doctrines he contro- 
verts ! Considering that the good priest is a volunteer, and 
not, like me, invited to join the intellectual tourney, would 
not a little modesty on his part become the situation ? Should 
he not, at least, name the books where those invincible proofs 
may be found ? for he says, " it would appear you are igno- 
rant of these proofs." We are told, " The wisest and greatest 
of mankind have known, studied and pondered these proofs, 
and been convinced by them." Francis Bacon was termed by 
a great poet the " greatest and wisest," even if the " meanest, of 
mankind," yet he believed in witchcraft ; and because he did 
shall we endorse the delusion ? He did not believe in 
" Catholicity," nor did Milton, nor Newton ; will you tlierefore 
renounce it? 



" NOTKS ON INGERSOLL." 49 

This is the nineteenth century. The spirit of inquiry is in the 
air, and pervades every avenue of knowledge. With untiring 
vigilance it watches every new development, and re-examines 
every scientific fact, every dogma, every metaphysical conclu- 
sion, be it old or new. No impediment can stay the grand 
current of human thought. 

We are glad to publish, word for word, the argument in 
proof of the existence of God, taken from Broivnson' s Quar- 
terly Reviczu, and which is incorporated in the *' Notes." It is 
marked by a subtlety and ingenuity of logic which must 
command respect even with those who dispute its conclusions. 
It runs thus : '' I allow you to doubt all things if you wish, 
till you come to the point where doubt denies itself Doubt 
is an act of intelligence ; only an intelligent agent can doubt. 
It as much demands intellect to doubt as it does to believe, to 
deny as it does to affirm. Universal doubt is, therefore, an 
impossibility, for doubt cannot, if it would, doubt the intelli- 
gence that doubts, since to doubt that would be to doubt itself 
You cannot doubt that you doubt, and then, if you doubt,, 
you know that you doubt, and there is one thing, at least, you 
do not doubt, namely, that you doubt. To doubt the intelli- 
gence that doubts would be to doubt that you doubt, for 
without intelligence there can be no more doubt than belief 
Intelligence then you must assert, for without intelligence you 
cannot even deny intelligence, and the denial of intelligence 
by intelligence contradicts itself, and affirms intelligence in the 
very act of denying it. Doubt, then, as much as you will, 
you must still affirm intelligence as the condition of doubting, 
or of asserting the possibility of doubt, for what is not cannot 
act. 

" This much, then, is certain, that however far you may 
carry your denials, you cannot carry them so far as to deny 
intelligence, because that would be denial of denial itself. 
4 



50 REPLY TO Lambert's 

Then you must concede intelligence, and then whatever is 
essential to the reality of intelligence. In conceding any- 
thing you concede necessarily all that by which it is what it 
is, and without which it could not be what it is. Intelligence 
is inconceivable without the intelligible, or some object capa- 
ble of being known. So, in conceding intelligence, you neces- 
sarily concede the intelligible.* The intelligible is therefore 
something that is, is being, real being, too, not merely abstract 
or possible being, for without the real there is and can be no 
possible or abstract. The abstract, in that it is abstract, is 
nothing, and therefore unintelligible, that is to say, no object 
of knowledge or of the intellect. [?] The possible, as possible, 
is nothing but the power or ability of the real, and is appre- 
hensible only in that power or ability. 

" In itself, abstracted from the real, it is pure nullity, has no 
being, no existence, is not, and therefore is unintelligible, no 
object of intelligence or of intellect, on the principle that what 
is not is not intelligible. Consequently, to the reality of in- 
telligence, a real intelligible is necessary, and since the reality 
of intelligence is undeniable, the intelligible must be asserted, 
and asserted as real, not as abstract or merely possible being. 
You are obliged to assert intelligence, but you cannot assert 
intelligence without asserting the intelligible, and you cannot 
assert the intelligible, without asserting something that really 
is, that is, without asserting real being. The real being thus 
asserted is either necessary and eternal being, being in itself, 
subsisting by and from itself, or it is contingent and therefore 
created being. One or the other we must say, for being 
which is neither necessary nor contingent, or which is both at 
once, is inconceivable, and cannot be asserted or supposed. 

* In assenting to tlie fact of doubting the intelligible; is the intelligence doubt- 
ing, and there is required no other " intelligible," %vhich satisfies the require- 
ment for something intelligible without postulating any reality besides the intel- 
ligence. 



51 

" Whatever is, in any sense, is either necessary and eternal, 
or contingent and created — is either being in itself, absolute 
being, or existence dependent on another for its being, and 
therefore is not without the necessary and eternal, on which 
it depends. If you say it is necessary and eternal being, you 
say it is God ; if you say it is contingent being, you still assert 
the necessary and eternal, therefore God, because the contin- 
gent is neither possible nor intelligible without the necessary 
and eternal. The contingent, since it is or has its being only 
in the necessary and eternal, and since what is not, is not 
intelligible, is intelligible as the contingent, only in necessary 
and eternal being, the intelligible in itself, in which it has its 
being, and therefore is intelligibility. So in either case you 
cannot assert the intelligible without asserting necessary and 
eternal being ; and therefore, since necessary and eternal being 
is God, without asserting God, or that God is ; and since you 
must assert intelligence even to deny it, it follows that in 
every act of intelligence God is asserted, and that it is impos- 
sible, without self-contradiction, to deny his existence." 

With great respect for the author of the above, I must say, 
when analyzed, it seems a web woven of words. Without 
preamble let us admit that God exists ; yet those who be- 
lieve in the eternity of matter believe also that all of the pos- 
sibilities of life were infolded within it from the "beginning." 
They hold that it had always the innate power of infinite 
expansion and differentiation, and that from it evolved mind 
and all the other phenomena of being. Besides infinite suc- 
cession of being is no more difficult of comprehension than 
self-existent eternal being. While wc conceive of space as 
illimitable, the idea of a limit to space being unthinkable, we 
can, as we have shown, conceive as well of a chain composed 
of links interminable extending through space. The truth 
is we may apprehend both or either, but can comprehend 



52 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

neither. We may, as shown by Herbert Spencer, " symbolize'* 
time and space, but from an understanding of them we come 
as far as our minds fall short of infinite comprehension. 

So much space ha's been given to the quotation on which 
reliance was placed that we must hasten to a conclusion of 
this chapter. 

Ingersoll. — " Logic is not satisfied with assertion." 

Lambert. — *' Then it is not satisfied with your assertion in 
reference to it." 

Certainly not. As an assertion merely, it carries no weight. 
It is a major premise, and if disputed must be proved. If self- 
evident it need not be proved. We consider it as such. But 
will the good, honest priest demand that a disputant parse his 
sentences and embrace in his work a treatise on every subject 
he mentions ? Surely the earth could not contain the book. 

Lambej't. — " Logic as a science deals with principles, not 
assertions ; and logic as an art deals with assertions only." 

The Father might have added, that logic, as a science, when 
applied to the elucidation of the grandest problems which can 
engage the attention of man, scorns the quibbles and subter- 
fuges of the schoolmen and directs its aim to the exposition 
of truth only. I speak of logic with a soul back of it ; not 
the kind which amuses itself with the jumping-jacks of tech- 
nicality. 

Ingej'solL — "A fact is a legal-tender." 

Listen to the rare profundity and excruciating logic of the 
Father's reply ! 

Lambert. — "A counterfeit is a fact; is it a legal-tender? " 

Yes, as a counterfeit it is. It is a legal-tender fact in court 
to convict the one who made or circulated it with criminal 
intent. But in the well understood sense in which Mr. Ino-er- 
soil used the word, it is not a fact, but a lie. 

The same sophistical spirit pervades the balance of Chapter 



"notes on ingersoll. 53 

VI. Not content with animadverting the statement that 
"assertions and miracles are spurious coin," the good priest 
inserts the word " all " before " assertions." Were the Father's 
self-appointed task to construe and not to misconstrue, he, as 
the commentator of Ingersoll, would have inserted mere in 
place of "all." In other words, ''mere assertion is not proof." 

Ingersoll. — " Reason is the result of all experience." 

This is incorrect, but quite as true as the Father's dictum, 
that " mind and reason are identical." Imagination is as 
much an attribute of mind as reason, yet imagination is not 
synonymous with mind. " Reason," says the Father, " is the 
soul or intellect itself in conscious action." Does not the 
soul act in its loves and affectional longings ? Yet who will 
say that love is the synonym of reason, or of mind ? Cer- 
tainly no father who, in vengeance, chases an eloping couple! 

Here we gladly leave the field of Metaphysics, always un- 
satisfying to popular desire, and turn to that book with which 
a priest of the infallible church is supposed to be conversant. 
This brings us to the real subject and substance of the contro- 
versy as raised by Mr. Ingersoll : " Is all of the Bible in- 
spired ? " 

In other words, were the writers of the Old and New Testa- 
ment so illuminated and controlled by the Spirit of God that 
they were enabled to write, and did write, the several books 
of the Bible, true as to all matters of fact, morals and doctrines 
therein set forth ? To this question we now address ourselves, 
following, as we must, the path marked out to us by our 
guide, the Father. 



54 REPLY TO LAMBERT* 



CHAPTER VIII. 



REPLY TO CHAPTER VIL 



Father Lambert on the Esthetic — Art Culture — Painting and Sculpture — The 
Jews as an Art Cultivating People Contrasted with Greeks, Romans, etc. — The 
Father's Definition of Art too Contracted — "The Roving Lecturer." 

We must now follow the Father into the regions of the 
aesthetic, where he luxuriates in much that is beautiful, and 
states some things that are true. Art studies are delightful, 
even to those who are not proficients in art culture ; and such 
may be thankful that if they cannot create, they may, at least, 
wonder and adore. 

higersolL — " In passing it may be well enough to say that 
the commandment, ' Thou shalt not make unto thee any 
graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven 
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters 
under the earth,' was the absolute death of art; and that not 
until after the destruction of Jerusalem was there a Hebrew 
painter or sculptor." 

Here it is alleged that the above command was a prohibition 
of two arts — painting and sculpture. I do not think it was 
so intended, however the Jews may have interpreted it. It 
would seem that a fair criticism would construe the words as 
limiting the making of works of art in so far only as they 
were intended to be used for devotional purposes. How He- 
brew fastidiousness may have construed the prohibition I am 
not able to say. But the Father has done little to disprove 



"notes on ingersoll." 55 

the charge that the arts referred to were dead as to the 
Hebrew race until after the destruction of Jerusalem, by show- 
ing that God gave specific instructions for the creation of 
works of art for the adornment of his own Temple. The 
Master may well permit his servant to provide a sumptuous 
banquet for himself, while the servant is fed upon the crumbs 
from the Master's table. What matters it, then, to the argu- 
ment that exceptions only are given, qualified by their own 
nature, and made conspicuous by divine command ? 

Lainbci't. — " Who made the golden calf? " etc. 

How the calf would stand as a work of art if made to-day 
no one can tell, but is it probable that as slaves in Egypt, or 
as dwellers in a wilderness, the Hebrews had time or oppor- 
tunity to study art ? So far we must excuse them for a want 
of knowledge which they could not obtain. If God by miracle 
endowed special sculptors with artistic skill, for his own pur- 
pose, such endowment goes not to the credit of the Jews as 
an art cultivating people. Of the Temple, etc., if rightly in- 
formed by Scripture, God was the draughtsman. 

But who among the Jews, after the making of the images 
referred to, and the building of the Temple for religious uses, 
and before the destruction of Jerusalem, ever carved a piece 
of statuary, or depicted on canvas a figure or scene worthy of 
intellectual worship? And yet, centuries before Titus marched 
on Jerusalem, works of unrivalled merit in both the useful and 
aesthetic arts were being executed by Greeks, Romans, and 
other peoples. 

The Father kindly treats us to a definition or description 
of art, in regard to its various subjects and manifestations. 

Lambert. — " From what you say about art, it is evident that 
you do not know its meaning and scope. You limit it to 
sculpture and painting, because you imagine these two forms 
of art are forbidden by the commandment. Art is broader 



56 REPLY TO Lambert's 

than that. I will give you a definition of art, which will, if 
you study it well, prevent you in future from showing your 
ears [softly, Father] to quiet, thoughtful men, who have 
gone somewhat deeper than you have into philosophy 
and theology. Art is the expression or manifestation of the 
beautiful. It is an appeal by symbolism to the senses. It 
treats of color and form, wliich are an appeal to vision ; letters 
and other outlines, which are an appeal to the intellect through 
the medium of sight ; vibratory motion, which appeals to the 
sense of hearing — called music; tangible forms, which talk to 
the sense of feeling ; and combinations, which appeal to the 
taste." 

Our conception of art embraces more than the Father's 
definition includes. Not only is it an " expression (;f the 
beautiful," but of the sublime, the pathetic, the devout, the 
grotesque, and the ludicrous. Its subjects are not only paint- 
ing, sculpture, poetry, and music, but history, oratory, and 
histrionic representation as well. In this view of art how 
stood the ancient Jews as compared with the most civilized 
nations of their time? 

Almost everything which can be denoted artistic among 
them related to religious sentiment and ceremony. And these 
works, it is claimed, were directly inspired by God; if so, they 
were not the result of artistic culture. 

We would not detract from, the merit, nor dim the glory, if 
we could, of the many beautiful and sublime effusions which 
the Old Testament affords us. But what of Greece, with 
her orders of architecture, with their beautiful elaborations and 
adornments, that have been perpetuated by studious imitation 
in the grandest edifices of the present day ; with her sculptors, 
who made the cold marble breathe and speak ; her statuary, 
the few fragments of which are left us being regarded, by the 
best artists of the present, as not only worthy of imitation but 
almost of adoration ? 



** NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 5/ 

Yet her great masters lived centuries before tlie light of 
man's redemption flashed from Calvary. So also of her poets ; 
as witness Homer, the grandest of epic bards : Pindar, whom 
critics pronounce the prince of lyric verse; Sophocles, JEs- 
chylus, and Euripides, who, though most of their writings are 
lost, have left us enough to justify the literary world in ranking 
them with the masters of dramatic composition. What ora- 
tors ever eclipsed Pericles and Demosthenes, and what his- 
torians Herodotus and Thucydides ? The truth is, no nation 
or religion can justly claim a monopoly of genius. When its 
sacred fire is kindled on the altar of the human mind, be it in 
pagan or Christian lands, its light will be manifest, and future 
ages will pay tribute to its power. 

Christianity has had over eighteen hundred years of prayer 
and progress. During the first twelve centuries there was no 
revival in Europe of the art of painting. Before that time 
Byzantine artists were employed to execute their ever-repeated 
types, which scarcely deserved the name of paintings. Until 
A. D. 1 22 1 art slept in Italy as in a sepulchre. Then Guido 
began to divide the light from the darkness ; and after him a 
constellation of genius arose, to dazzle the world with its bril- 
liancy. Among its brightest orbs were Raphael, Michael 
Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Titian, and Correggio — all mem- 
bers of the same school, and all superbly great. Four hun- 
dred years have passed since the latest of these great men was 
born, and yet we ask in vain for those on whom their mantles 
fell. Their glory was perpetuated in their works, not by 
those who would fain have emulated their excellence. 

It is true that religion inspired their efforts and directed 
their aim. Their themes, for artistic effect, were grand beyond 
compare, and urged them on to higher and still higher con- 
ceptions which, in the divine crucible of art, were crystallized 
into realities. All honor to such men of whatever creed or 



58 REPLY TO Lambert's 

kindred. How narrow the soul that sees no good beyond the 
confines of kindred and kindred faith ! Grand it may be in 
other ways, but how contracted in this? That which is be- 
coming to one age may be illy adapted to another. The day 
has passed when either the rational theologian or philosopher 
considers his views the axis on which the world revolves. If 
the wisest contribute one grain to the general accretion which 
goes to make up the mountain chain of human knowledge, he 
will not have lived in vain. 

Lambert. — " He [the average man] is apt to place too 
much confidence in the ignorant statements of that monumental 
bore of modern times, the roving lecturer — price fifty cents." 

When such men as the late Charles Dickens, the late Wen- 
dell Phillips, Mathew Arnold, etc., etc., enter the lecture-field, 
year after year, we will let their example stand as against the 
Father's censure; for such men are *' not only superior to me, 
but almost equal to the Father's conception of himself" 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 59 



CHAPTER IX. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER VIII. 

Jewish Atrocities Charged on God — The right of God to Inflict Wanton Suffer- 
ing on His Creatures Denied — God has no Right to do Wrong — Justice wiih 
God and Man Qualitatively Alike though Quantitatively Unequal — Gross 
Conceptions of Deity — Jewish Barbarities — "Captive Maidens" — Lying 
Spirits, etc., etc, 

Ingersoll. — " He (God) ordered the murder of millions." 

Lambert. — " He never authorized or ordered the murder of 
any one from Abel to Garfield. God is the i\uthor and Giver 
of life, and those he places on this earth he can remove at his 
will. No man has a right to live one instant longer in this 
world than his Creator wills him to remain, be he born or 
unborn, innocent or guilty. As creatures of God we are ab- 
solutely his, and can have no rights whatever as against him." 

The proposition embraced in the Father's comment raises 
two questions: (i). Has God a " right " to do whatever he 
arbitrarily might will with his creature man, moulded in his 
image, whom he made a little lower than the angels, and 
thought worthy a crown of glory and honor ? Has he the 
right, for instance, to inflict wanton suffering without any 
moral aim whatever? 

(2.) Had he, according to some mysterious rule of justice 
the right to do so, would he, as the merciful Ruler of the 
universe, exercise that right ? God, we are told, is " infinite " 
in every holy attribute; and that holiness embraces justice, 



6o REPLY TO Lambert's 

mercy and truth. It may be assumed illogically, however, 
that justice in human hmguage does not mean justice in the 
divine vernacular — that God's code of morals, so to speak, 
differs from man's code. Yet, if God has spoken to us at all, 
he has employed human speech as the medium of communi- 
cation. If made in his " mental and moral likeness," we con- 
ceive and practise, under analogous conditions, the same kind 
of justice and mercy as he, only to a more limited extent. 
Justice and mercy, then, with God and man are qualitatively 
alike though quantitatively unequal. Fear of the superior power 
of God, and a gross conception of a liability on his part to use 
it to our disadvantage, may torture from us an admission that 
divine and human justice are not alike in kind. But we can 
apprehend neither justice nor mercy which is not humanly 
conceived and realized; any other kind is unthinkable. Scrip- 
ture, when speaking of deity, addresses man as man, and 
appeals to his sense of right and wrong. Well may it; for 
we have no other means by which to judge of the morality of 
human actions, nor of the attributes of God. Further, the 
Scriptures refer us to the divine attributes as exemplified in 
God's government of his creature man, as proof of his own 
justice and mercy. Has he, then, the right to violate those 
attributes which are in consonance with the moral sense he 
has implanted within us? If so, he has the right to do 
wrong ; to ignore those principles as eternal as his own being, 
of which they are supposed to form a constituent part. Can 
we believe that he has a right to create a sentient being, sim- 
ply to damn him, and that for his own glory? In language 
before quoted, the supposition involves contradiction and 
absurdity. Why do you call God just? because he is power- 
ful ? Alas ! power and justice are seldom allied. Why do 
you adjudge him merciful ? Is it for no better reason than 
that fear constrains you ? Have you the same conception of 



"notes on INGERSOLL." 6 1 

him that the cringing sycophant has of the lordHng, who not 
only tithes the fruits of honest toil, but exacts the sacrifice of 
soul on the altar of adulation, to tickle a pampered and in- 
flated vanity ? Job, the hero of the poem which Carlyle pro- 
nounced, aside from its claim to inspiration, the grandest epic 
ever written — Job, the soul of patience and pious trust, when 
he feels himself unjustly afflicted, cries out in his agony : " Oh ! 
that I knew where I might find him ! that I might come even 
to his seat ! I would order my cause before him, and fill my 
mouth with arguments." No ; if God be God, he is no 
Nero, no Herod, no Gessler, but a Father lifting up his chil- 
dren to himself The Parent of all, they are most like him 
who dare speak the truth, though earth frown and hell 
trembles forth her anathema. We are told that we may not 
rejudge the justice of God. No one claims to be able to re- 
verse his decrees; and no one, as far as I know, who believes 
in his existence, doubts his justice and mercy. We believe 
that he is good, but that you slander him by imputing to him 
acts he never did, and words by him never spoken. We 
believe that certain pictures of him contained in the Bible are 
but the conceptions of men who lived in dark and supersti- 
tious ages. 

Even admitting that God had the right to inflict wanton 
torture on his creatures, as a being of perfect justice and in- 
finite mercy is it likely he would do so ? You do not believe 
he would, neither do I ; but if man have no rights whatever 
as against him he would have a right to thus afflict man if he 
chose, and simply because he is the Creator of man. A very 
good reason why he should not and would not do so. 

It is not forgotten that suffering begins and death ends 
earthly existence; that cyclones and earthquakes engulf 
thousands in death's dark abyss. Such is the order of nature 
by whomsoever ordered, or whether ordered at all. But this 



62 REPLY TO Lambert's 

we know, to such calamities all are liable. The rich, the 
poor, the prince, the peasant, priest, and penitent, good and 
bad, all succumb to the inexorable laws of nature. So also 
the rain and sunlight descend in equal measure upon the 
just and unjust. In this we behold an impartial distribution 
of favors, as well as common liability to the ills to which hu- 
manity is heir. 

Natural law holds sway over the universe. If we break 
that law, even by accident, we suffer the penalty. But we are 
told there is a being of perfect justice and of infinite mercy, 
and our hearts rejoice. We know how impartial justice is, 
and how sweet to our holiest contemplation is that " m.ercy 
which endureth forever." We meet a book of which 'tis said, 
God — a name implying all the beauties of holiness — is the 
author, and we ask, do the facts stated and lessons taught in 
that book comport with the character ascribed to its reputed 
author? Say not we have no right to rejudge him ; we agree 
as to his supremest excellence ; it is the Book which is on 
trial. Can we believe, without mental and moral obliquity of 
vision, without renouncing every natural conception of right 
and wrong, that the good God inspired men to write that 
which shocks reason and moral sensibility to such an extent 
that we must call for the veil of mystery to obscure its de- 
formity ? Would we not rather believe that men — good men, 
considering the times in which they lived — wrote their con- 
ceptions of God and, by their traditions, defiled the pure 
current of history ? 

Lambert. — '* He who has the absolute right to take life can- 
not be guilty of murder in taking it ; for murder is an unjust 
killing, and there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by 
him who has the absolute right to take it. There is no escape 
from this reasoning except by denying the absolute right, and 
you cannot deny this but by denying God's existence ; for on 



** NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 63 

the hypothesis that he exists, he is Creator, and being Creator^ 
the absolute right of dominion over his creatures necessarily 
follows, ... to deny this right is to deny God's existence." 

If by absolute dominion be meant the right to govern with- 
out regard to the principles of justice, written by God's own 
finger on the tablet of the human heart, we fail to see it. The 
right of dominion is not the tyrant's right. Suppose I had 
the power to speak into sentient life the sands of the sea, and 
to endue them with mental, moral, and physical being, would 
I be justified, because the creator of such, in inflicting suffer- 
ing upon them from mere caprice, or for my own pleasure? 
No. And to ascribe a kindred right to God is to assert that 
he has the right to do wrong, to violate the eternal laws of his 
own being — is to aver that power is holiness. 

" God has a right to take life." Granted ; but should he 
or would he convert the world into a slaughter-house and de- 
pute his chosen people, as human butchers, to slay, not only 
men, but women, children, and babes unborn? Death comes 
by fire and flood, and from the innumerable accidents to 
which humanity is exposed. But whether from the light- 
ning's flash, the tempest's breath, the devouring flame, or as a 
calm exit, as by peaceful slumber; by it the heart is softened, 
the affections refined and chastened, and unholy passion re- 
buked and subdued. But when the hounds of hate are un- 
chained and their fangs drip blood; when in demoniacal rage 
man meets man in deadly conflict, seeking to mutilate and 
kill, a picture is seen on which the fiends of hell should look 
with pity. For everything which is pure in sentiment, noble 
in conception, or holy in love is defiled and blasphemed. 
Hence war in its mildest form obdurates the soul. Its demor- 
alizing influences, mitigated by all the military amenities and 
mercies of to-day, extend to generations unborn. 

But what shall we say of wars where prisoners were tor- 



64 REPLY TO Lambert's 

tured, the bodies of the dead mutilated in emulation of sav- 
agery ; where sex was not spared, nor tottering age respected ; 
where helpless babes were carved and hammered into pulp ; 
where not even a tear of pity rewarded the prayer for mercy ? 
What must have been the effect of such inhuman brutalities on 
those who participated in them ? Charge such deeds to ig- 
norance if you will, but not to him the double crime — the 
death of the victims of unholy religious hate, and worse than 
the soul's death of their murderers. Such are not the acts of 
men insticrated bv a being- who, as Matthew Arnold would 
say, " maketh for righteousness." 

But the heathen nations were " so wicked ! " But what of 
the Jewish people and their anointed rulers? From the days 
of Abraham the lash of the Almighty was held zn terrorem 
over their backs, and his will was made clearly manifest to 
them ; and yet, with all, they were in a state of chronic re- 
bellion against their divine ruler. Not content to make gods 
with their own hands they borrowed them from the heathen 
and worshipped them. 

The killing of the heathen by the idolatrous Jews is justi- 
fied, although the heathen nations were ignorant of the divine 
law and its penalties, because they had been revealed to their 
ancestors hundreds of years before. As if that were a revel- 
ation to them. Suppose all our acts of assembly should be 
burned and not reprinted for ten generations, would any just 
judge condemn a criminal for the violation of a law of which 
he had never heard because ages before his ancestors had read 
it? 

Mr. Ingersoll is severely reprimanded because he avers 
that, according to Scripture, captive maidens were surrendered 
to their lustful captors. He is accused of being reckless in 
statement. The charge he makes is termed a baseless asser- 
tion and an appeal to ignorance. 



"notes on ingersoll." 65 

Lambert. — " I flatly deny the truth of your statement given 
above, etc. ... If you study the 21st chapter of Deuteron- 
omy, verses 10 to 14, you will learn that the soldier was 
obliged to make the captive his wife, or to respect her person 
and honor." 

Wh)^ does the Father say "to" and not through the 14th 
verse ? Without divining the motive it will be apparent that 
by so doing he would have disproved his own assertion and 
have justified Mr. Ingersoll's statement. I will quote from 
verse 10 to 14 inclusive: 

10. " When thou goeth forth to war against thine enemies, 
and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, 
and thou hast taken them captive, 

11. "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and 
hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife ; 

12. "Then thou shalt bring her home to thy house ; and 
she shall shave her head and pare her nails; 

13. "And she shalt put the raiment of her captivity from 
off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father 
and her mother a full month : and after that thou shalt go in 
unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 

14. ''And it shall be, if thou have 7io delight in her, then thou 
shalt let her go zvhither she will ; but thou shalt not sell her at 
all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because 
thoiL liast humbled her!' 

Certainly; a lady of the present day would, no doubt, feel 
sufficiently " humbled " by treatment like this. If not suited 
to the delicacy of capricious lust, she, humbled and defiled, is 
sent adrift, unwept and unloved. " You shall be her husband," 
and she " thy wife." So in the plenitude of thy mercy sell 
her not, noble man ! devoted husband 1 but with a wave of 
thy hand waft her to the uncertain waves of fortune less piti- 
less than the deity whose mandates you obey. 
5 



66 REPLY TO Lambert's 

" Rattle his bones, over the stones ; 
He is only a pauper whom nobody owns." 

This, Father, is a proverb of mercy in compare with verse 
14, to which yow forgot to refer. 

But the proof is not exhausted. Read Numbers xxxi. 14 
to 19, and you will see that Moses was not sated with the 
wholesale slaughter of the Midianite soldiery, but was wroth 
because women and male children were suffered to live. 
Listen to his command : 

" Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and 
every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But 
all the women children that hath not known man by lying 
with him, keep alive for yourselves.'' Female innocence to be 
offered a sacrifice on the altar of lust! Noble trophies of 
victory ! 

Lambert. — " God abhors lying spirits ; false prophets, false 
philosophers; yet he permits them to exist because he can- 
not [What !] make them impossible without destroying free 
will or human liberty." 

The good priest has at last confessed it. There be some 
things which even God cannot do. To the extent of his ina- 
bility he is of course " limited." 

We now agree that somethings are impossible with God, 
even if we disagree as to what is and what is not impossible. 

But did the God of the Hebrews, as the Father avers he 
did, abhor lying spirits ? A man might employ an agent, 
from policy, whom he abhors. But with God there is no 
scarcity of messengers to do his will. 

I Kings xxii. 20 to 24. "And the Lord said, Who shall 
persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? 
And one said on this manner and another said on that man- 
ner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the 
Lord, and said, I will persuade him. 



67 

"And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith ? And he said, I 
will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all 
his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and pre- 
vail also ; go forth and do so. Now, therefore, behold the 
Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy 
prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 
Would it not appear from this that the ** lying spirit " was on 
good terms with Deity when he volunteered his services to 
lie for him, which tender was accepted and approved? 

When will humanity exchange the swaddling-clothes of 
its infancy for garments becoming its mature manhood? 



6S REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER X. 



REPLY TO CHAPTER IX. 



A Grand Failacy — "Witches, Ghosts and Demons — The Myths of Mythology — 
" Religious Toleration, Free Thought and Treason " — Idolatries of King 
Solomon — " The Liberty to think Error," 

One grand fallacy, giving birth m transitit to several lesser 
ones, pervades nearly the whole of Chapter IX. of the " Notes," 
which is devoted to the subjects: "Religious Toleration, 
Free Thought, and Treason." 

It is difficult for theology to cleanse its garments from the 
moths, the mould and mildew of the past. It started out in 
a blaze of the miraculous ; it assumed, as a God-given privi- 
lege, the right to persecute, torture and slay. It peopled the 
world with wizards, witches and evil spirits innumerable, and 
now holds that they were verities of the past: the credulous 
few still believing that these horrid things were, and are, and, 
though more coy and retiring, still hover near us; their pres- 
ence boding no good. But in some way the light of knowl- 
edge has melted into " thin air " these conceptions, born of 
ignorance and fear, and by enlightened minds they are classed 
with the myths of mythology, with the nymphs, naiads, and 
fairies of former times. Who believes in witches now? Who 
in demoniacal possessions ? And how many among enlight- 
ened Christian sects believe in a personal devil? W^e seldom 
hear witchcraft referred to in pulpit discourses. The subject 
is a sad reminder of times when sacerdotal robes and the 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 69 

judicial ermine were saturated with innocent blood, the fruit 
of delusions borrowed from Judaism, and honestly cherished, 
but which enlightened common sense has substantially ban- 
ished from the civilized world. Science asks, " where are the 
witches and demons of the past ? " The answer is : rele- 
gated to their place among the myths of a barbarous an- 
tiquity. 

So also of the cruelties inflicted on dissenters in opinion. 
Yet to maintain the doctrine of ** plenary inspiration," it is 
necessary to devise a justification for such abominations as 
peculiar to ancient times and unique circumstances. The 
question is, if right tJicn^ why wrong now? And thus we are 
brought to the main subject of the chapter at present under 
review. 

Ingersoll. — " The religious intolerance of the Old Testa- 
ment is justified upon the ground that 'blasphemy was a 
breach of political allegiance,' and that idolatry was an act of 
overt treason, and that * to worship the gods of the hostile 
heathen was deserting to the pubHc enemy, and giving him 
aid and comfort.' According to Mr. Black, we should have 
liberty of conscience except when directly governed by God. 
In that country where God is King, liberty cannot exist." 

Lambert. — " If these positions of Mr. Black are well taken, 
it is difficult to see how you can escape their logical conse- 
quence. For you must admit that overt treason, breach of 
political allegiance, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy, 
are crimes that merit severe punishment. If you were a 
logician you would have known that to refute Mr. Black you 
should have shown that blasphemy and idolatry were not 
overt acts of treason." 

Let us, for the sake of argument, admit that idolatry and 
blasphemy were treason and merited death. In this view how 
stood Aaron the high priest, who made the golden calf? 



yO REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

It is said that he permitted the people to worship naked, to 
their shame, and this excuse, filmy and attenuated as it is, is 
the best his brother Moses has given for him. Yet he uttered no 
protest, as far as recorded, against the people's purpose, though 
three thousand were slain to vindicate the honor of deity ! 

But what of Solomon the wise man, and of the long line of 
kings who introduced idol worship even in the temple of the 
Lord? 

" But King Solomon loved many strange women, together 
with the daughters of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Am- 
monites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites ; of the nations con- 
cerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye 
shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you : 
for surely they shall turn away your heart after their gods : 
Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hun- 
dred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines : and his 
wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass when Solo- 
mon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other 
gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, 
as was the heart of David his father. . . . Then did Solomon 
build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, 
in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomi- 
nation of the children of Amnion. 

"And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt 
incense and sacrificed unto their gods. And the Lord was 
angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the 
Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and 
had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should 
not go after other gods : but he kept not that which the Lord 
commanded" (i Kings xi.) 

Here was the wisest of men, the king of a nation favored 
of God; to whom he had revealed himself, time and time 
again — rich beyond compare, and yet a traitor to his divine 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 7 1 

benefactor — given to harlotry and idolatry manifold : did God 
punish Ids treason with death ? Oh ! no ! he did not rend his 
kingdom from him, even, while he lived, but spared it him for 
King David's sake ! The same David who joined the hosts 
of the Philistines to fight against Israel, put captives to cruel 
torture, and mutilated the persons of the dead ! Surely, David 
in his treason to his own people was a traitor to God. In 
those days they who knew their Master's will and did it not 
were beaten with few stripes ; those who knew it not, with 
many. Why was it that the " chosen people," with shining 
miracles always before thpir eyes, and the voice of Jehovah 
ringing in their ears, were commanded to fatten upon the 
spoils — the life-blood of the poor heathen, who knew not 
God ? The chosen people were always forsaking the spiritual 
deity, and making a ** corner " in gods of wood and stone. Yet 
God is no respecter of persons ! You, Father, have a holier 
design toward the heathen. You would convert them, and 
make men of them. You would not slay the innocents be- 
cause their fathers had sinned, but in your beneficence would 
fain rescue the fathers from the moral and intellectual dark- 
ness into which they are plunged. 

But in regard to treason as a justification for the slaying of 
millions, because God was King, and to deny his authority 
was treason : unfortunately for such, logic, after the Book of 
the Law was found in the house of the Lord (2 Kings xxii. 
8) the Jewish people were professedly governed by it and 
enforced the laws therein prescribed, among which were com- 
mands that witches, idolaters and Sabbath-breakers should be 
put to death. In it we also read : " If thy brother, the son of 
thy mother, or thy son. or thy daughter, or the wife of thy 
bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee 
secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, wliich thou 
hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; . . . thou shalt surely 



72 REPLY TO Lambert's 

kill him ; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to 
death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou 
shalt stone him with stones that he die." Again, in Ahab's 
reign, the holy prophet slew four hundred and fifty of the 
prophets of Baal (i Kings xviii. 40) : "And Elijah said unto 
them, take the prophets of Baal, let not one of them escape. 
And they took them : and Elijah brought them down to the 
brook of Kishon, and slew them there." And again in the 
good Josiah's reign (2 Kings xxiii. 20) : "And he slew all the 
priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and 
burned men's bones upon them, an-d returned to Jerusalem." 
Thus we see the argument that it was right to put heretics to 
death, because God zvas King and heresy was treason against 
the state, fades away like mist before the sun : for long after 
theocracy had given place to kingly rule it was the law and 
custom to visit the same offences with the same punishment 
as when God was the direct ruler of the Jewish people. 

We may be asked whether God is not at all times the ruler 
of all men ? Yes : his being admitted, his sovereignty is uni- 
versal and perpetual. He cannot renounce his dominion — 
his fatherhood; and if his justice and mercy sanctioned in 
olden times the slaughter of those who denied his authority, 
so also should they now. It was on this strictly logical basis 
that persecution grew up — that witches were burned and 
heresy punished as a crime. And if it was a crime in the 
dark ages spanned by Jewish history, a much greater is it now 
and deserving of more severe punishment. We should not 
wonder, then, at the blood-stained history of the past. It is 
the natural and logical consequence of Jewish doctrines, laws 
and precedents, which were believed to have been recorded by 
men under the full and direct inspiration of God. 

Idolatry treason ! No honest thought can be treason to 
him who knows the hearts and motives of men. 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 73 

Lambert. — " Is a government intolerant because it will not 
tolerate treason ? If not, then the Jewish government was 
not intolerant, and the fact that God was its direct ruler does 
not change the nature of the case." 

As shown above — and let not the reader forget this impor- 
tant fact — the same punishment was meeted out to idolaters ; 
at least when they were not rich, wise, and powerful (as in 
King Solomon's case), under kingly as under theocratic rule, 
sometimes, even, at the hands of God's own prophets. The 
treason argument, therefore, as it proves too much, according 
to the laws of logic proves nothing. But look the question 
fairly in the face. Not only is it objected that so-called 
treason was punished, but that the penalty was often so 
brutally inflicted. The humanity of to-day, even in capital 
cases, for the highest grades of crime, requires that the offender 
should be put out of the way with as little suffering as possi- 
ble. To inflict wanton pain on a criminal is revolting to the 
highest sense of justice and mercy. We never torture the 
living nor mutilate the dead. 

The ancient Jews were at the same time a semi-barbarous 
and a wonderful people ; barbarous, in that they, in common 
v/ith other nations less advanced, were not free from the in- 
stincts of savagery; while wonderful in their capacity for in- 
tellectual development, in their devotedness to religious con- 
viction, sometimes so fully and beautifully formulated in a 
spiritual faith and a perfect moral code; and wonderful in 
their persistent violation of every principle of ethics and every 
religious sentiment, in their noblest aspects, as spoken by their 
poets, priests, and prophets. 

Paradoxical race ! We cannot tell what it was without say- 
ing what it was not, nor what it was not without declaring 
what it was. What gems of thought, in its sacred books, do 
we find scattered among the rubbish of ceremony ! What 



74 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

sweet and holy-tempered precepts of charity and universal 
brotherhood dispersed among commands bloody and cruel! 
How much of the purely spiritual is defiled — if purity can be 
defiled — by the material and grossly sensuous ! The stranger 
within thy gates, O Jerusalem, ye must treat with kindness 
and becoming hospitahty ; for ye were once strangers in a 
strange land. How charming the sentiment, how persuasive 
the recall to memory of the time when Israel in bondage, 
among a strange people, begged the kindness which they are 
told to accord to others. 

But what of the decree : that which dieth of itself ye may 
give to the stranger or sell to the alien, that he may eat it, but 
thou, Israel, being holy, must forego the luxury! 

With regard to liberty of conscience the good Father 
seems somewhat confused. In one place his words imply 
that ** speculative conscience " is admissible and not subject to 
the penalties of mundane law divine. In other words that a 
man is privileged to think what he pleases, if he does not 
speak nor formulate his ideas in overt acts. On the next page 
we are told that " The only liberty of thought which he 
(God) does not allow is the liberty to think error, to meditate 
evil, to plan crime." But who shall decide what is error, what 
meditations are evil, and what plans criminal ? Evidently the 
safest way is not to think at all, for the rod is over us and 
may fall, but to hire some ecclesiastic to think for us. 

Lambert. — '* On what evidence or authority do you assert 
that men, etc., were punished simply because they had not 
intelligence enough to understand the law ? " 

It would seem apparent that the wanderers in a desert wild 
would not have worshipped Aaron's calf if they had not hon- 
estly expected deliverance by it. And we may learn a lesson 
in later times from one greater than Moses and all the 
prophets. When the poor sufferer was nailed to the cross, 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 75 

what was his prayer for those who pierced his flesh with the 
cold steel and pressed the vinegar and gall to the lips which 
had spoken the deliverance of humanity? ''Lord, forgive 
them, for tliey know not what they do." 

The grandest sermon, the holiest prayer and benediction 
ever uttered by mortal or immortal lips ; for in a few short 
words is compressed the doctrine of universal love — of mercy 
infinite. 

Should you, Father, seek to-day to muster recruits to war 
with idolatry, with purpose to convert, or exterminate with 
weapons of fire and sword, your victims to be men, women, 
and children born and unborn, how long would it take you to 
recruit a regiment even in Catholic countries? My dear 
Father, you would, at the end of your efforts, constitute your 
whole army, from high private to commander-in-chief, and, 
solitary and alone, like the king of France, inimts the forty 
thousand men, you would march up the hill and so come 
down again. Yet in this age, when missionaries are a redun- 
dancy and education almost as free as the air we breathe, it 
would seem more just to punish idol-worship with death, than 
when black ignorance overspread the earth, and the moral 
sense slumbered in the human breast in germinal obscurity. 

Do not say to those who advocate liberty of conscience 
that they plead for the right to do wrong; though they hold 
that there arc thoughts and acts for which man is not account- 
,able to man. Neither refer us to the insane — we are not ad- 
dressing that class ; nor to those erratic spirits who confound 
liberty with license. The boundary line which divides them 
we may not be able to define with absolute exactness, but 
when license appears as the counterfeit of liberty, the educated 
common sense of the world protests. Human liberty is a 
science, and one of the greatest thinkers of the age has de- 
voted a volume to its exposition. The subject as related to 



'j6 REPLY TO Lambert's 

moral science and civil law, like all other important questions, 
is worthy the profoundest thought, and is not susceptible of 
hasty solution. As man advances in the scale of enlighten- 
ment, so do his ideas of personal liberty become more clear. 
But "the right to think error " being denied him, the wheels 
of human progress must stop. Who that ever thought has 
not thought error ? Who does not know that from the be- 
ginning of his career man has been compelled to grope his 
way through darkness, learning little by little the mysteries of 
the universe around him, and of his own being and responsi- 
bilities ; gathering in his " pan " a thousand grains of the 
sands of error to one nugget of truth, and now compelled to 
sift and wash ! Yet, says the Father, God gives us not the 
liberty to think error ! 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." JJ 



CHAPTER XL 

REPLY TO CHAPTER X. 

Father Lambert's Dignified Headings — Human Ignorance and Divine Pity — 
Sinful Ignorance — Wars of Persecution — Exterminating the Heathen — The 
Father's Advice to "Brain " the Infants of Savages. 

The first thing that engages attention in our review of 
Chapter X. is its chaste and dignified headings : ** Some 
gush ; " " Methods of warfare ; " " Cheek," etc. When vul- 
garity of expression is indulged, it is more respectful to 
readers to refer than quote. 

In the following words Mr. Ingersoll raises the point that 
an infinitely merciful God must pity the misfortunes of his 
children and forgive an ignorance which is " invincible: " 

Ingersoll. — " I insist that if there is an infinitely good and 
wise God, he beholds with pity the misfortunes of his chil- 
dren." 

Lambert. — " I insist on the same ; but we must distinguish 
between misfortune and crime, misfortune and wickedness." 

Ingersoll. — " I insist that such a God would know the 
mists, the clouds, the darkness, enveloping the human mind." 

Lambert. — " He does know, and takes into account these 
disadvantages in dealing with his creatures." 

In regard to the distinction between the misfortune and the 
sinfulness of ignorance — and there is such a distinction — will 
the Father point it out clearly and definitely, so that we may 
know its ear-marks for all time? If he will, he will confer a 



yS REPLY TO LAMBERT'S 

great benefit on humanity. I would cast no wanton reflection 
on creed, nor practice under a creed ; but, as matter of his- 
tory, and as having a direct bearing on this interesting ques- 
tion, will ask: What of Catholic persecutions in the past? 
Were they right or wrong ? If wrong, were those who perse- 
cuted, whether pope, prince, or priest, wicked, or were they 
not ? Wicked, we say, in one sense and to some degree, yet 
to a great extent the victims of a horrible delusion. Of course 
the exigencies of theology require that broken fragments 
should be soldered together — that excuses be made for wrongs 
unspeakable ; for it will not do to surrender the doctrine of 
infallibility. It is the keystone of the Catholic arch, yet at 
what a sacrifice sustained! Faith in the theological world is 
exalted above works. Behold the creeds of Christendom ! 
How much is said of belief; how comparatively little of prac- 
tice. How tolerant the church to those — if they subscribe to 
dogmatic teachings — who do ill, or neglect opportunities of 
performing those acts which the laws of justice and charity 
require ; how denunciatory of those, however exemplary in 
conduct, who dare to utter a dissent from doctrines formulated 
by self-constituted authority. And note, a special hierarchy, 
as the keeper of the individual conscience, is to dictate what 
we may and may not believe, and decide what is and what is 
not sinless ignorance. Because ecclesiastics t/ii;i^ they knozi\ 
all men must accede to their teachings, under the penalty of 
eternal damnation. We are told that ignorance should be 
commiserated but crime punished. True ; but consider the 
subject-matter of the controversy. Was that a crime in the 
heathen worthy of death, which was passed over as a ** venal" 
sin among the people with whom God was in daily inter- 
course as guide and instructor? 

It is not forgotten that the Jews were " punished," but note 
God's long forbearance with them, and the comparative se- 
verity of their punishment. 



*' NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 79 

"And David commanded his young men, and they slew 
them and cut off their hands and feet and hanged them up 
over the pool of Hebron" (2 Sam. iv. 12). The same David 
who rewarded them who smote the " lame and blind " among 
the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 8) ; and who, in pious glee, in a state 
of almost perfect nudity, "danced before the Lord with all his 
might" (2 Sam. vi. 14-20). 

The Father talks much of blasphemy. As used by him 
the word is misleading, and is dust to the eyes of common 
sense, as well as an incentive to moral cowardice. Do I blas- 
pheme, because in my estimate I exalt God above the Father's 
conception of him ? 

In justification of wars of conquest and of extermination, 
Father Lambert says : " Mr. Black defended what you (Inger- 
soll) call the atrocities of the Jews recorded in the Old Testa- 
ment, on the principle recognized by all peoples and nations, 
pagan philosophers and Christian apostles, that the right to 
exist implies the right to repel the opposing force that 
threatens destruction. If enemies come to conquer, a nation 
has a right to conquer them ; if they give no quarter, they 
have a right to none; if the death of the whole population be 
their purpose, it is right to defeat it by putting them all to the 
sword if necessary. These principles are self-evident, and are 
recognized by all the nations, and practised by all except 
Christian nations; and if the latter do not practise them, it is 
because the benign influence of Christianity has refined the 
sentiments and softened the harsher features of man's nature, 
in which, however, something of the savage and the ghoul 
always remains." 

Here we have a false implication as to fact, followed by 
damaging confessions — confessions, indeed, ruinous to the 
cause the Father defends. He says : " The right to exist im- 
plies the right to repel the invading force that threatens 



8o REPLY TO Lambert's 

destruction ; " and would, on this principle, justify the bar- 
barities practised by the Jews, not defensively but offensively, 
on the peoples they came all the way from Egypt to rob and 
exterminate ! 

But let us apply the Father's logic to the exact point at 
issue, and see where it will land the Jewish race. " If enemies 
come to conquer, a nation has a right to conquer them." 
The Jews came professedly to conquer : therefore, the heathen 
nations had a right to conquer them. " If they give no quar- 
ter, they have a right to none." The Jews gave no quarter, 
therefore had a right to none. "If the death of the whole 
population be their purpose, it is right to defeat it by putting 
them all to the sword if necessary." The death of the whole 
population of the heathen nations was the avowed purpose of 
the Jews ; hence the right of those nations to defeat that pur- 
pose by putting all of the Jews to the sword ! 

And these principles we are told are *' practised by all ex- 
cept Christian nations ; " and that if they " do not practise 
them, it is because the benign influence of Christianity has 
refined the sentiments and softened the harsher features of 
man's nature," etc. If what the Jews did was right, the light 
of Christianity would only reveal its justice more fully; if 
wrong, that light more clearly reveals its atrocious nature by 
rendering its darkness visible. The gospel of love will not 
justify the doctrine of hate. 

Lambert. — " God is the Creator, the Supreme Ruler of the 
univ^erse and of all men. As such, man owes him allegiance 
and obedience." 

Not so ; man owes him allegiance not because he is power- 
ful, but because he is just; obedience, because of the right- 
eousness of his law ; and love, because his tender mercy is 
over all his works^ — because he first loved us. What is the 
obedience which power alone commands ? What the love 



"notes on INGERSOLL. 8 1 

that fear exacts? A kiss to the tyrant's rod. Such low 
conceptions of deity and of the grounds of human obhgation 
make " Bob " Ingersolls possible. 

Here a protest must be entered against the methods of war- 
fare commended by the Father and termed " civilized." 

Ingersoll. — " If they kill the babes in our cradles must we 
brain theirs ? " 

Lambert. — " Yes, by all means brain them ; tear them limb 
from limb, salt them, ship them to the Cannibal islands," etc. 

Reader, do not mistake ; the foregoing was not written by 
a Fiji chief, but by a disciple of the Prince of Peace ! 
6 



82 REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER XII. 



REPLY TO CHAPTER XL 



Wars of Extermination — Slavery — Defensive Wars not Wars of Conquest — 
Alleged Superiority of Physical over Moral Power. 

There is so much small talk in the " Notes," so many per- 
sonal flings (I am sorry to say not of a high order of merit), 
and such laborious attempts to avoid main issues by very 
small criticisms, that an honest reviewer who desires to meet 
fairly every salient point in dispute finds the winnowing pro- 
cess unpleasant and laborious. 

Why was it necessary for the Father to cloud his argument 
by interspersing it with personal detractions of i\Ir. Ingersoll, 
and with fulsome eulogies on his own performance ? What 
has Mr. Ingersoll's personal character, good or bad, or the 
Father's cleverness, to do with the subject in dispute ? We 
know the Father is a great man and a perfect exterminator as 
a disputant, for we are assured of both facts, not only by 
Reverend Patrick Cronan, but by the Reverend Father Lam- 
bert himself, by oft repeated assumptions and assertions which 
can leave no doubt in the minds of his readers. It is his right 
to do so that all may know what they might have failed to 
discover from a perusal of his argument. But it would be a 
mercy to his readers if he would write an autobiography and, 
fully portraying his exceeding merit, leave the subject of the 
present controversy to the elucidation of facts and arguments, 
free from self-adulation and personal censure. Every human 
being is equally interested in the present issue ; and no man 



"notes on ingersoll." 83 

In such a contest should seek victory for the sake of self- 
glorification, nor by other than fair and seemly methods. 
He who is convicted of error is the victor in a controversy : 
for he has gained that which he had not ; his opponent retain- 
ing only what he already possessed. 

In disputation we should never lose sight of the point in 
issue. Let us return to it. Mr. Ingersoll, in his articles re- 
viewed in the " Notes," sought to answer the question, " Is 
all of the Bible Inspired?" To prove the negation of this 
query, he instanced, among other things, the aggressive wars 
of the Jews as recorded in the Old Testament, with a " Thus 
saith the Lord" for their sanction ; the practice of polygamy 
in its vilest forms, and unrebuked by divine reproof; and 
slavery as instituted by command of God. 

Of course the consistent apologist who would maintain the 
plenary inspiration of the Old Testament must, in some way 
and to his own satisfaction, justify those wars, as also the insti- 
tutions which, at the present day, we regard as abominations. 
The chapter under review is, in the main, devoted to the sub- 
jects of war and slavery. Mr. Ingersoll had said that a war 
of conquest was simple murder. It would seem that no one 
should have mistaken his meaning, — certainly no one who 
kept in mind the kind of wars he was condemning, i. e., the ag- 
gressive wars of the Jews. But for those who must stand or 
fall by the plenary inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures it is, 
at least, more politic to confuse than make clear. 

The Father attempts to enlighten his opponent, who, he 
says, does not understand Judge Black's argument, by stating 
it " syllogistically," thus : 

"According to Mr. Ingersoll, * a war of conquest is simple 
murder.' 

" But the war with the South was a war of conquest. There- 
fore, the war against the South was simple murder. Now 



84 REPLY TO Lambert's 

Mr. IngersoU participated in that war, therefore Mr. Ingersoll 
was a party to the crime of murder." 

The fallacy of this syllogistic statement lies in the misuse 
of the little word " conquest " as applied to the facts of which 
Mr. IngersoU was writing. The words, " wars of conquest," 
in their proper historical application, mean aggressive wars, 
wherein one nation seeks to subdue and to establish dominion 
over another ; and not defensive wars for the establishment of 
independent governments, nor wars to maintain the integrity 
of governments already established. 

The historian, or conversationalist even, who should affirm 
that the United States had ever conquered Great Britain would 
be laughed at. 

There never was a war waged by the United States against 
the " South," any more than a war against the city of New 
York when her riotous elements were quelled by the Federal 
soldiery. There was a rebellion in the Southern States against 
lawfully constituted authority — an attempt to subvert the gen- 
eral government in certain States. 

This authority was maintained by force of arms. Call you 
this a war of conquest? 

Since writing the above I have read a paragraph in Mr. 
IngersoU's essay. It is beautifully and forcibly written. I 
will quote it, for it will show the reader how faithfully the 
Father has kept his promise to give a fair statement of Mr. 
IngersoU's arguments. 

IngersoU. — " Mr. Black justifies the wars of extermination 
and conquest, because the American people fought for the in- 
tegrity of their own country, fought to do away with the infa- 
mous institution of slavery, fought to preserve the jewels of 
liberty and justice for themselves and for their children. Is it 
possible that his mind is so clouded by political and religious 
prejudice . . . that he sees no difference between a war of ex- 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 85 

termination and one of self-preservation ? That he sees no 
choice between the murder of helpless age, of weeping women 
and sleeping babes, and the defence of liberty and nationality ? " 
The pious priest gives us the first few lines of the above, 
leaving out the very pith and substance which clearly eluci- 
dates the difference between wars of conquest, on the one side, 
and defensive wars and wars for the preservation of national 
integrity, on the other. 

IngersolL — " Slavery includes all other crimes. It is the 
joint product of the kidnapper, pirate, thief, murderer and hy- 
pocrite." 

Lambert. — " How does it hiclude all other crimes if it be the 
joint product of them? A product is an effect." 

An apple pie includes apples, dough, nutmeg, etc., yet is 
not the pie the joint product of these ingredients ? Ask your 
cook. 

IngersolL — " The superior man is eyes to the blind." 

Lambert. — " His superiority does not consist in seeing for 
the blind, but in his ability to see. His disposition to see for 
the blind is evidence of his goodness." 

Then we ask is there no such thing as moral superiority ? 
or if there be, is it dwarfed into insignificance by the over- 
shadowing greatness of physical power? Were those wlio 
crucified Jesus superior to him ? They had the power to cru- 
cify ; he, the divine will to forgive. 



86 REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER XIII. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XIL 

Liberty — Polygamy — Rousseau's Opinion of Philosophers — Philosoj^hy and 
Theology Compared. 

In his twelfth chapter the Father enhghtens us with a dis- 
quisition on " hberty ; " and here again is exemplified how far 
a good, pious man may go astray to meet the exigencies of 
an occasion. The Father quotes : ** With me, liberty is not' 
merely a means — it is an end." Ingersoll said this and the 
Father pronounces the declaration ** too vague." " We are," 
he says, '* all in favor of liberty, as we understand it, but we 
do not agree as to what it is or ought to be. It is a foolish 
loss of time to caw over the word until we have a common 
idea or understanding of the thing. Do you mean by the 
word the liberty Guiteau exercised, or that of the Nihilists, or 
that of the Mormons, or that of the thief, the robber, or the 
murderer ? " 

Of course from this extract it would be inferred that the 
Father was in doubt as to what kind of liberty Mr. Ingersoll 
referred to. What will the reader think, when informed that 
the Rev. Lambert passed over three little words immediately 
preceding his last quotation, which words make the meaning 
plain beyond cavil, and perfectly germane to the subject? 
These words are, "/ abhor slavery." And he continues : 
" With me liberty is not merely a means — it is an end." 
Here it is manifest that the liberty spoken of is the kind con- 
tradistinguished from slaver}' — from property-right in men, 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 8/ 

women, and children. But because his opponent praises 
liberty, without specifically defining its metes and bounds, he 
is gruffly reproved, and told that Madame Roland said, as she 
was carted to the guillotine, " O liberty ! what crimes are 
committed in thy name ! " " The Christian," says the Father, 
" loves liberty as dearly as you ; he would soar fi-om planet to 
planet and from star to star, and drink in the immensity of the 
universe." Hold ! Father, do not leave us. We only ask you 
to stay and be human. Drink not in the immensity of the 
universe, but the nectar of liberty, and repay the draught with 
the milk of human kindness. 

Madame Roland uttered an eloquent truth. But could not 
every victim of the accursed inquisition have said with equal 
truth, '* O religion! what crimes are committed in thy name!" 
The Father, unreasonably, we think, demands a definition for 
almost every important word his friend, Mr. IngersoU, em- 
ploys. The word " liberty " disconnected from any particular 
subject or train of thought is a mere abstraction, but liberty as 
the antithesis of human slavery means next to everything. 
At least it implies the negation of chattel-right in man ; of 
human flesh and soul as articles of traffic ; of the right to 
rend and desecrate the holiest ties by tearing asunder hus- 
band and wife, parent and child ; of confiding to man over 
his fellows irresponsible power, certain of abuse in myriads 
of atrocious ways. 

Liberty is the right to do what one may please without in- 
trenching on the rights of others ; yet the query arises, what 
does intrench on those rights ? This question, as to details, 
the wisdom of ages has not fully answered. The ancient 
church held that heresy was a greater crime than murder. 
The church, from its own standpoint, was logical. Believing 
that the heresiarch by false teachings consigned both soul and 
body to eternal hell, was he not worse than he who destroyed 



88 REPLY TO Lambert's 

the life of the body only? Yet do you, Father, justify what 
the church did and what is now regarded as ecclesiastical 
murder? Would you, now, had you the power, restrain me, 
or any one, by penal enactment, ecclesiastical or otherwise, 
from publicly avowing " Protestant " sentiments, or from pro- 
claiming what you term infidel doctrines ? Though neither 
you nor I may be able to define liberty with an exactness 
which shall defy criticism — you have not attempted it ; try it 
— yet let us come to practical questions. You profess to de- 
spise vague generalities. I shall not indulge in them. Let 
us see how far we agree as to what kind of liberty should be 
guaranteed to a people. 

Do you believe in the broad-gauge religious liberty we 
Americans enjoy? Were the United States under Catholic 
domination would what we call " religious toleration " be 
enjoyed to the same extent by people of all shades of religious 
and non-religious faith as at present ? If not, to what extent 
abridged ? Some twenty years ago or more I read an editorial 
in the Pittsburgh Catholic, in which the writer claimed that 
Catholic nations alone had the right to forbid the exercise of 
other than prescribed kinds of worship, for the reason that 
non-Catholics only believe they are right while Catholics hold 
their faith with the certainty of knowledge. 

A year or so ago it was broadly published that a son of 
General Sherman, in a lecture before a Catholic institution of 
learning, spoke in advocacy of the inquisition. I never heard 
or saw a denial of the charge, though I watched the papers 
to see if one was made. But true or false, what say you on 
the subject? Your ideas may help us to a practical definition 
of liberty satisfactory to both of us. 

We now approach a marvellous piece of assertion. We 
are told that as to the physical and intellectual laws man has 
no liberty whatever. Is it true, then, that the intellect of man, 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 89 

which above all things else determines his choice and shapes 
his conduct, has no more freedom of action than a grain of 
sand, or the wave that dashes on the shore and returns again 
to the bosom of the deep ? May not man abuse his intel- 
lectual as well as his moral nature? Perhaps I do not under- 
stand the Father. I hope not, and that the reader's perception 
is keener than my own. 

The subject of polygamy, as practised under the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation, is next in order. 

IngcrsolL — " We are informed by Mr. Black that polygamy 
is neither commanded nor prohibited in the Old Testament — 
that it is only discouraged. It seems to me that a little legis- 
lation on the subject might have tended to its discouragement. 
But where is this legislation? " 

Lambert. — *' In your first article on the Christian religion 
you said that the Bible upheld polygamy as the highest form 
of virtue. Your opponent met your assertion with a denial 
that the Bible so held or taught. Here a direct issue was 
made — a question of veracity raised. And how did you meet 
it ? Did you stand by your statement and proceed to prove 
it? Not at all. You reply by saying that the Bible did not 
legislate against it. This is an admission that your statement 
could not be sustained — a raising of the white flag." 

Here, we are told, is a question of veracity. Veracity, of 
course, means adherence to truth. If a man lacks veracity 
he is untruthful ; is, in short, what the Father, by necessary 
implication at least, often calls Mr. IngersoU — a liar. Would 
his critic like to be tested by the same rule? Let us see. 
The Father says that Mr. IngersoU asserted that the Bible 
upheld polygamy as the highest form of virtue. He said no 
such thing. What he did say was this : " But the believer in 
the inspiration of the Bible ... is compelled to insist that 
there was a time when polygamy was the highest form of 



90 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

virtue." You may ask whether there is a substantial difference 
between the words as written and the words as quoted. Yes ; 
waiving the fact that when a man's veracity is tp be tested he 
has a right to be tried by his exact words, there is this differ- 
ence : as written the words referred to assert a logical conclu- 
sion, which, sound or unsound, is not regarded as a test of ve- 
racity, but involves merely a question of construction. The 
charge that the Bible taught or upheld polygamy as the highest 
form of virtue would imply that the Bible contained com- 
mands or precepts exceedingly favorable to it. Without aver- 
ring this, we might still insist that as God's chosen people, and 
his especial favorites, who walked in his ways and were men 
after his own heart, were permitted to enjoy a multiplicity of 
wives without reproof, that such permission was equivalent to 
the divine sanction. 

Yet we do not impeach the veracity of the good priest. 
He no doubt intended to be truthful, but in his anxiety to 
entrap Mr. Ingersoll got caught himself 

Ingersoll. — " In the moral code (of the Old Testament) not 
one word is said on the subject of polygamy." 

Lambert. — " Then why did you say that the Bible taught 
polygamy as the highest form of virtue?" 

We have already shown that the Father has imputed to 
Mr. Ingersoll words which were not written by him. Here 
we have the same false charge the second time repeated. 

Lambert. — " If you look in Genesis, chap, ii,, verse 24, you 
will find the following words : * Therefore shall a man leave 
his father* and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife [not 
wives], and they shall be two in one flesh.' This is the law 
of the case. This text is sufficient to upset all your talk about 
the Bible teaching polygamy." 

Mark what Father Lambert is trying to disprove. His 
opponent had said : *' In the moral code of the Old Testament 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL, 9 1 

not one word is said on the subject of polygamy." Has this 
been disproved ? What is a code ? A system or digest of 
laws. Does the one verse quoted answer to the definition ? 
Who wrote that one verse? Some of the most orthodox 
scholars and divines now admit that Moses did not write it. 
Some years ago an able essayist wrote an article for the 
" Princeton Repertory and Review," in which he argued that 
some ten different authors wrote the book of Genesis. 

To whom was this command given? No one knows. Did 
the Jews regard it as a command ? It would seem not, for in 
the lifetime of Adam it is recorded (Genesis iv. 19) : "And 
Lamech took unto him two wives : the name of the one was 
Adah, and the name of the other Zillah." Not a censure 
intimated from any quarter. No reproof of the vile practice 
is found from Genesis to Malachi ; from the alpha to the 
omega of the Old Testament. 

Moses is the reputed author of Genesis. Would he have 
recorded a law of God relating to the most sacred of relations, 
for the guidance of the human race of all nations and for all 
time, and then have shamelessly violated it ? Was David — 
the man ** who kept my commandments and followed me 
with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine 
eyes" (i Kings xiv. 8) — was he a gross violator of one of 
the first provisions of the divine ** code ? " 

But even if the clause referred to were prohibitory, the 
uninterrupted and unrebuked practice for thousands of years 
among God's own people, and even while he was their direct 
ruler, would certainly seem to be a practical repeal of the 
command. The injunction to keep the Sabbath day holy was 
thought of sufficient importance to be incorporated in tJie 
moral code, the ten commandments ; and its violation was 
punished with death. At which would the Christian mind 
the more revolt — the picking of chestnuts on Sunday, or a 



92 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

harem a la Turk ? Perhaps when Genesis, chapter ii., was 
written men were monogamists. That like men of the pres- 
ent day they may have thought one wife quite sufficient — 
sometimes one too many. But the Jewish nature was covetous, 
and, though strict observers, in the main, of the ceremonial 
law, the Hebrews neglected marital proprieties as well as the 
weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy. They 
grew, perchance, into polygamy, and if their Jehovah rebuked 
the practice they have failed to record the fact. 

In what way was it " discouraged," even, when the favorites 
of God were permitted to have wives ad libitum without ad- 
monition or reproof? Polygamy was a concomitant of 
barbarism, and under the enlightening influence of civilization 
it faded away. It is not forbidden in the Old Testament, but 
the wisdoip of experience condemned it and it was substan- 
tially, if not entirely, extirpated in Judea before the Christian 
era. The Father says that slavery is not a sin per se (in 
itself); will he inform us whether polygamy and concu- 
binage are sins per se, or sinless when practised for sanitary 
reasons? 

Lambert. — *' But on what principle do you condemn polyg- 
amy ? Christians say and believe it is wrong because God 
has forbidden it [when and where ?], but by what right do 
you say it is wrong ? 

'' Now in the light of this doctrine of liberty, how do you 
dare to obtrude yourself and notions between any man and 
woman ? What right have you to limit a woman in her 
selection of a man, even though that man be the husband of 
other wives ? . . . Deny God and assert unlimited liberty, and 
where is the wrong in polygamy ? " 

No one has pleaded for unlimited liberty, /. r., license, 
** But how dare you obtrude," etc. I answer for the same 
reason that we dare object to the immolation af witches and 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. O3 

heretics on the altar of superstition — because it injures those 
who practise it and outrages the rights of those who suffer 
from it ; because it breeds domestic discord and visits wrongs 
innumerable upon innocent children who become its victims. 
For the same reason that we treat gambling as a crime, 
though the casting of lots was a scriptural method of deciding 
questions of ecclesiastical preferment, as it is now to raise 
money to maintain religious establishments. We see that 
games of chance played for money or things of value are 
injurious to society, and society has the right to protect itself 
Our legislators did not pass laws against gambling because it 
was forbidden in the Bible, for there is there no command 
against it ; but because injurious and immoral consequences 
are its uniform results. Slavery is not forbidden in the Bible, 
but sanctioned by it, yet nearly all civilized nations have 
abolished it by law. Why ask, then, how we dare interfere 
to prohibit polygamy ? 

Lambert, — **And if a man is a beast, and there is no future, 
what is to prevent him from following the instincts of his 
animal nature ? Reason ? " 

Yes, reason, were man all you suppose, which no one 
claims ; and also because he learns by experience that virtue 
is its own reward and conduces to happiness, even in this life, 
as well as because he is endued by nature with a sense of 
justice, and with affections which often make self-sacrifice a 
pleasure when it conduces to the happiness of others — that 
sense of justice and love of humanity which led deists and 
atheists to become prime movers in the war against polygamy 
and slavery. But you eloquently assert that the reason this 
sense of right restrains men "is because God's moral code 
permeates Christian thought, and makes a healthy public 
opinion which governs even those who deny this code." 

What ! when God's " moral code " established slavery and 
forbade not polygamy? 



94 REPLY TO Lambert's 

The doctrine, that if we had no revelation we would have 
neither moral sense nor moral law, not only antagonizes ex- 
perience and sound philosophy but Scripture as well : " For 
when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the 
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a 
law unto themselves: which show the work of the law, written 
in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their 
thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one an- 
other " (Romans ii. 14, 15). 

The Father quotes Rousseau, the French skeptic, to show 
the egotism of philosophers and the vanity of philosophy. We 
cite all our space will allow and refer to the " Notes " 
(which we hope all our readers may buy and read) for the 
balance. 

" I have consulted our philosophers, I have perused their 
books, I have examined their several opinions, I have found 
them all proud, positive, and dogmatizing, even in their pre- 
tended skepticism ; knowing everything, proving nothing, and 
ridiculing one another ; and this is the only point in which 
they concur, and in which they are right." 

Too true of philosophy in Rousseau's day ; and, although its 
spirit has been greatly elevated and chastened since he lived, 
there is yet room for a decided advance. Philosophy, alas ! 
partakes of human infirmity. It is too often arrogant in dog- 
matism, and the food it offers to the hungry soul is but par- 
tially satisfying. We crave certainty and it proffers us doubt, 
and bids us further on. We sigh for " respite and nepenthe," 
and trust that theological science may allay our fears, and 
teach us lessons which shall make us wise and good ; and we 
are met by a multitude of warring sects, which revile and per- 
secute each other; each claiming to hold the only panacea, 
the genuine balm of Gilead, that alone can heal the wounds 
which ignorance and human infirmity have made. We find 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 95 

sacerdotal garments crimsoned with human blood, and hear 
echoed from the ages, shrieks and groans of the victims of 
religious hate. They who search for truth with honest pur- 
pose and unbiased minds, if that search culminate in doubt 
or unbelief, are reprobated and despised. 

In view of these things, can theology look philosophy in 
the face, and in arrogant self-sufficiency say : " I am wiser 
and holier than thou ? " 



96 REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER XIV. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XI IL 

Woman's Rights and the Bible — Woman's Condition in Heathen and Pagan 
Nations — Mr. Ingersoll's Articles Garbled and Misquoted in the "Notes" — 
St, Paul and Woman's Rights. 

In chapter xiii. we have discussed a subject which raises 
the Banquo question — woman's rights. 

Ingersoll. — *' Where will we find in the Old Testament the 
rights of wife, mother, and daughter defined ? " 

Lambert. — '* They are found in the warp and woof of the 
Bible." 

As said the preacher : " Beloved, my text is ' love ; ' it is 
found in the book of John, and if you wish to know the 
chapter and verse, it will do you a great deal of good to read 
till you find it." 

The Father claims that before deciding what woman's rights 
are, they must be determined rightly and independently of 
sentiments and feelings. A rather difficult task to undertake; 
for who can discuss a moral question, or one involving human 
rights, without sentiments or feelings ? 

Ingersoll. — ** Even in the New Testament she (woman) is 
told to learn in silence and subjection." 

Lanibej't. — " Most excellent advice for man, woman, and 

child She (the wife) should, according to Christian 

law, obey her husband as a superior. Not as if in slavery, but 
freely, in the same way that the church obeys Christ, her 
head." 



"notes on ingersoll." 97 

And how does the church obey Christ ? Is it not by abso- 
lute subjection to his teachings on subjects of doctrine and 
morals — in short, to everything he teaches ? Would the 
Father have the Catholic wife of a Protestant husband prac- 
tise the same obedience that he here recommends ? 

As broadly stated, we should not listen to our teachers in 
subjection and silence. When we understand not, we would 
fain ask questions ; when we dissent, would modestly express 
our objections. Not at all times and in all places, it is true, 
for that would be indecorous ; but when circumstances admit 
and politeness justifies. 

Lambert. — " Would you have the learner pert and imper- 
tinent ? " 

I answer — will you exhume mummies and ask us if we can 
revive them with our breath ? Will you make men of straw, 
and ask us to adopt and defend them as our children ? 

No one has attempted to justify pertness nor impertinence. 
The attempt to defame an adversary, and discredit his argu- 
ment by imputing to him ideas which he has not expressed, 
and which any sane man would repudiate, is both wicked and 
unwise. 

I do not believe that Paul intended to be understood as 
forbidding " private opinion," even among women. He wrote 
to a church who well understood him, and for its instruction. 
It is quite possible that certain women in his day, as in ours, 
when they smelled the aroma of piety, went into "keniption " 
fits, followed by unseemly demonstrations and encroachments 
on decorum. Paul wanted " order in meeting," and entered 
his protest against religious hysteria. Scripture will never 
be understood until read by the light of the age in which 
it was written. Let Mr. Ingersoll stop to do justice to 
Paul by admitting, at least, that he was not a Salvation 
Army man. 



98 REPLY TO Lambert's 

For the first time since beginning this review I have Mr. 
IngersoU's essays before me, though I read them when first 
pubHshed. BeHeving that he was faithfully represented in the 
" Notes," at least not misrepresented nor intentionally garbled, 
I trusted the ** Notes," as I was obliged to do, on matters of 
quotation, etc. Finding I had been misled, finding that In- 
gersoU's articles were garbled, misquoted, and their meaning 
obscured, I was obliged, in necessary haste, to review a little, 
and have inserted a few ideas and excerpts in several preced- 
ing chapters. This chapter I rewrite entire. To do justice, I 
quote, somewhat in extenso^ what Mr. Ingersoll wrote on the 
"woman question." 

Ingersoll. — "All the languages of the world are not suffi- 
cient to express the filth of polygamy. It makes man a beast 
and woman a slave. It destroys the fireside and makes virtue 
an outcast. It takes us back to the barbarism of animals, 
and leaves the heart a den in which crawl and hiss the slimy 
serpents of loathsome lust. And yet Mr. Black insists that 
we owe to the Bible the present elevation of woman. Where 
will we find in the Old Testament the rights of wife, and 
mother, and daughter defined ? Even in the New Testament 
she is told to * learn in silence with all subjection ; ' that she 
' is not suffered to teach, nor to usurp any authority over the 
man, but to be in silence.' She is told that * the head of every 
man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the 
head of Christ is God.' In other words there is the same dif- 
ference between the wife and husband that there is between the 
husband and Christ. 

" The reasons given for this infamous doctrine are that 
'Adam was first formed and then Eve ; ' that Adam was not 
deceived; but that 'the woman being deceived was in trans- 
gression.' These childish reasons are the only ones given by 
the inspired writers. We are told that ' a man, indeed, ought 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 99 

not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is in the image and glory 
of God; ' but * that the woman is the glory of man,' and this 
is justified from the fact set forth in the very next verse — that 
' the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.' 
And the same gallant apostle says : ' neither was the man 
created for the woman, but the woman for the man.' * Wives, 
submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto the Lord ; for 
the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head 
of the church, and he is the saviour of the body; therefore as 
the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject 
to their husbands in everything.' These are the passages that 
have liberated women." 

I here ask whether the Father by taking a splinter from 
the " sap " of the tree of logic, and testing its strength as if 
it were the whole tree, has done justice to an opponent? 
This process is especially unfair to the great majority of 
the readers of the " Notes " who would think themselves 
contaminated by touching a NortJi American Review con- 
taining one of Mr. Ingersoll's articles. No one expects 
a reviewer to quote the whole book or article he reviews, 
but he should cite enough of it fairly to reflect the author's 
meaning. 

But worse than paucity of quotation follows. 

Lambert. — " Moses forbade these abominations (the licen 
tious modes of worship practised by women at the altars of 
Venus and Cybele), and for this you accuse him of taking away 
the ' rights ' of women." 

What will the reader say when he finds, by reading Mr. 
Ingersoll's articles, that this is a plain, unvarnished misstate- 
ment ! And yet such will he find it. O prejudice ! let charity 
charge to thee what illiberal souls would impute to wilful false- 
hood. 

As to the comparative condition of the Hebrew and heathen 



100 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

women as discussed by Mr. Ingersoll and the Father, it mat- 
ters little, both being bad enough. 

Some rays of light we see amidst thick darkness in the 
history of all nations — some glimmering stars of the olden 
time which have become suns in the intellectual and moral 
firmament of the present. All else how dark ! Like the 
Father, when he says with regard to woman's position in 
heathen countries, " I refer you to these authors, as it would 
not be proper to quote their descriptions of life, manners and 
worship in those countries in a book like this," so I, with 
kindred delicacy, would rather refer than quote, when I write 
of the treatment to which women were subject under Jewish 
rule and law; for instance as delineated in the twenty-first and 
twenty-second chapters of Deuteronomy. 

We are referred in the " Notes " to the incestuous marriages, 
as permitted in Egypt, Chaldea, Persia, Greece, etc. 

But whom did Cain marry if not his sister ? Whom did 
Abraham marry ? 

"And yet indeed she [Sarah] is my sister; she is the 
daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and 
she became my wife" (Genesis xx. 12). And by God's express 
command cousins married cousins (Numbers xxxvi. 10, 11). 
Again if a man refused to marry his brother's widow, 
she was commanded to spit in his face in the presence of the 
elders ! 

This is Jewish history written by Jewish historians under 
claim of inspiration ! 

With Renan, I regard Paul as the greatest of the apos- 
tles : not perfect nor free from the prejudices of his times; 
yet, always brave and fervently eloquent in the advo- 
cacy of truth as he believed it, he did more to break down 
the narrow partition wall of race which Judaism had erected 
than all the other apostles combined. 



"NOTES ON INGERSOLL, Id 

The right of woman is to fulfil the highest destiny which 
she is mentally, morally and physically qualified to reach. 
Law has made harsh discriminations against her, but her con- 
dition is being vastly improved. In England to-day she has 
a higher legal status than here. But this is not the place to 
discuss specific measures of reform. 



102 REPLY TO LAMBERT S 



CHAPTER XV. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XIV. 

Adam, Eve, and the Serpent — The Comparative Merits of Jews and Heathens — 
Carrion Flesh for Strangers and Aliens — The God of the Jews Established 
Slavery — "Exterminate" defined — William Penn and the Indians. 

The allegation that Eve was the cause of human sin, sor- 
row, and death, is denied by the Father, who terms her not 
the cause but the occasion of evil. A pretty decided " occa- 
sion " was she who took the first bite and, with her nature 
defiled, passed the apple to her husband that he might eat of 
it and, like the gods, be wise and know good from evil. 

As represented in Scripture, the snake was the first cause 
of transgression, woman the second cause, and Adam the 
third. It required a succession of causes to bring " sin into 
the world with all our woe," some six thousand years ago, in 
the face of science, which declares, modestly speaking, that 
man has inhabited this earth for tens of thousands of years, 
and that death reigned over the animal kingdom decades of 
thousands before man's advent. Yet stick to it : 

" In Adam's fall 
We sinned all." 

For theology requires a denial of the gospel of the rocks, as 
well as a sacrifice of human sympathy, to maintain her struct- 
ural symmetry. Churches, as constituted, could not be main- 
tained without it. Regarding the comparative demerits of the 
Jews and of the " godless heathen," I remark^ if ever there 



"notes on ingersoll. 103 

was a more heartless, sensual, idolatrous race than the Jews, 
as Scripture depicts them, God pity that people. We have 
the authority of Fenelon, Catholic Archbishop of Tours, that 
the Jews were not " one jot less corrupted " than the heathen, 
whom the Father, in chapter viii., assures us were worthy of 
extermination because so wicked ! Many things which Scrip- 
ture records of the Jews would shock the ears of decency: we 
dare not quote, scarcely refer. But as an example of unalloyed 
unselfishness, of justice clarified, of sanctity that passeth un- 
derstanding, refer to Deuteronomy xiv. 21 : "Ye shall not 
eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the 
stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou may- 
est sell it unto an alien : for thou art an holy people unto the 
Lord." Why complain of the Jew to-day if he sell you 
shoddy clothing, when the Lord gave him license to dispose 
of carrion flesh to the stranger and the alien ? I animadvert 
not the race. It is in many respects noble, and always glori- 
ous in its persistence, even against persecution and proscrip- 
tion, which no other nation — for though scattered, it is a 
nation still — ever endured. The Jew of to-day would not 
feel himself justified in vending diseased carcasses to the Gen- 
tiles, refusing to eat the same himself, because he is of a 
people " holy unto the Lord." The car of human progress is 
moving and the Jew is in the front seat. Even when cast out 
he clings to its sides and endeavors to keep apace. Let us 
not forget, in the pride of our boasted civilization, that our 
British ancestors but a few hundred years ago dressed in skins, 
lived in caves, and, under the auspices of a Druidical priest- 
hood, sacrificed human beings in wicker-baskets. 

The past degeneracy of our race is inconceivable ; the pos- 
sibilities of its future incalculable. Men stand aghast with 
horror at the idea of being the descendants of monkeys. Yet 
who would not rather be a monkey than a cannibal, or a theo- 



104 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

logical monster, which has imbued its hands " until thicker 
than themselves with brother's blood," because that brother, 
in the independence of honest thought, could not offer up 
conscience on the altar of creed ! 

It gives us no pleasure to dwell upon the abominations of 
past time. We must read of them, for they are a part of his- 
tory ; yet ignorance mitigates crime, and we should not ex- 
pect to find the same high standard of morality among bar- 
barous as among civilized peoples. But when asked to endorse 
revolting crime, and to justify it with a " Thus saith the Lord," 
every humane soul, not bound by chains forged in the smithery 
of superstition, protests. 

The Father objects to the statement that God, as repre- 
sented in the Old Testament, established slavery. We are 
told there is a distinction between *' permit " and " establish." 
True, but was not Jehovah, when he issued his mandates re- 
garding slavery, the ruler of the Jewish people ? Suppose 
the Czar of Russia should issue a ukase, saying to his people, 
" You shall not enslave your brethren proper, but of the Cos- 
sacks and Polanders you may buy both bondmen and bond- 
maids — hold them for life, and leave them an inheritance for 
your children." Would you not say the Czar had established 
slavery in his dominions ? A decree of permission which 
culminates in practical adoption by the people to whom it is 
addressed is an establishment. 

The aggressive wars of the Jews, we are told, were not 
wars of annihilation but of extermination, and that " exter- 
minate, from ex and terminus, means to drive from the borders, 
to expel, to drive out," and that '* this the Jews did to the 
Canaanites just as we are exterminating the Indians from this 
continent." 

In confidence, Father (I will not whisper it to the illiterate ; 
will not open the eyes of your blind, nor the ears of your 



"notes on ingersoll." 105 

deaf; between ourselves), may not the word signify something 
more than to ** expel, to drive out?" We both know, you a 
good and I a poor Latin scholar, that exterminate is com- 
posed of the two Latin words, ex^ from, and tcYJiiinus, limit. 
We also know that words, like the seasons, change. Their 
meaning to-day may not be their meaning to-morrow. So 
gradual is that change that the transition may not be noted ; 
yet, v/hen it comes in its fullness, all must recognize it. Take 
the word prevent as an example. It is derived from or com- 
pounded of pre, before, and venio, to go, meaning, literally, to 
" go before ; " and such was the sense in which it was origin- 
ally used. 

What, in popular acceptance, does it now mean? Not to 
go before, but to obstruct, to hinder. Take, as an instance, 
the passage of Scripture, I Thessalonians iv., part of verses 
15, 16, 17 : " We which are alive and remain unto the coming 
of the Lord, shall woi prevent them which are asleep .... the 
dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we, which are alive and 
remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds 
to meet the Lord in the air." According to the present 
meaning of the word " prevent " Scripture would declare that 
at the resurrection of the dead there will be an ignoble strife 
between the righteous living and the righteous dead ; that the 
former will try to hinder the latter from joining the redeemed 
throng in its ascension to meet their common Lord. 

But read the word according to its original meaning and as 
understood when King James' translation was made, and all 
is light. *' Those who are alive shall not go before those who 
are dead, but shall be caught up together with them in the 
air," etc. So of exterminate. Its most general meaning now 
is, to extirpate, to literally destroy. But in the clear light of 
history, what little need have we for lexicons ! Moses should 
have understood the commands of him with whom he was in 



io6 REPLY TO Lambert's 

constant communication. (Numbers xxi. 3.) "And the Lord 
hearkened unto the voice of Israel and deHvered up the 
Canaanites ; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities." 
(Numbers xxxi. 17.) "Now, therefore, kill every male among 
the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by 
lying with him." (Deut. ii. 34.) "And we took all his cities 
at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, 
and the little ones of every city : we left none to remain!' 

In the light of these passages — in the bright lexicon of Jew- 
ish mercy, what does extermination mean ? 

Much more of kindred import could be quoted, but my soul 
sickens and I turn away. 

The Indians, cruel as they are, have been maltreated by us, 
and our treatment of them is no excuse for Jewish atrocities. 
The laws of dynamics will prevail, but should not countervail 
the laws of morality. William Penn, the noble old Quaker, 
bartered with the Indians, not in deception but in honesty; 
not by deceiving them as to the difference between tei: square 
miles and ten miles square, as was done with the Cornplanter 
tribe, but by fair, open dealing, which has made his name 
the synonym of honesty. 

The bloody tomahawk and scalping-knife were never 
raised against the colonies he planted on territory honestly 
bought and faithfully paid for. " Lo ! the poor Indian," in 
his untutored, savage state, knows justice from wrong, knows 
contract from robbery. Would that the Lord's anointed real- 
ized so fully those eternal laws which make every man a 
brother and every woman a sister. 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL. lO/ 



CHAPTER XVI. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XV. 

Argument and Assumption — Slavery — Polygamy — Legislation of the Roman 
Catholic Church Against Slavery — Father Lambert to Make a "Point" Splits 
a Sentence in Two and Changes Punctuation — Misquotations by the Father — 
Slavery in Itself^ is it Sinful ? — Blanchard and Rice's Debate on Slavery — 
Miracles. 

A WAR of words is a sham battle. As is said by boys at 
marble play, " Let us knuckle down tight." Idea should 
combat idea in generous emulation of candor as well as of 
logical force. If honest in our opinion, let us not fear the 
cohorts of error, though their name be legion. " I will go to 
Worms," said Luther, ** though the devils be thicker than the 
tiles on the houses." It was Fred Douglass, I think, who 
said : " God and one always make a majority." Let not the 
lovers of truth be troubled. Hell yawns not for honest souls. 
Why do I write that which will displease the many, and be, 
in part, unsavory to the few? Do I not know that, if falla- 
cious in my reasoning, some able pen will poise my argument 
on its point, and pile it as rubbish before my eyes ? And how 
complacently, gratefully, would I survey the wreck ! for, in 
the triumph of truth, we may well glory in our own defeat. 

Ingersoll. — " In this age of fact and demonstration it is 
refreshing to find a man who believes so thoroughly in the 
monstrous, the miraculous, the impossible and immoral." 

Lambert. — ** Here you assume to determine what is mon- 
strous, miraculous, impossible and immoral. It is refreshing 



I08 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

in this age of general education, to see an infidel offering his 
crude notions as ultimate principles or axioms." 

And we say, it is refreshing to hear a priest, who himself 
bases the greater part of his argument on assumption, reprove 
an infidel for resorting to priestly tactics. But of what was 
Mr. Ingersoll speaking, when he referred to the monstrous ? 
To the story of the loquacious serpent, to the alleged univer- 
sal flood, to the story of a woman transformed into a pillar 
of salt, and to the Tower of Babel " stopped by the jargon of 
a thousand tongues." And what was referred to as immoral ? 
Slavery, polygamy, wars of extermination, and persecution 
even unto death, for opinion's sake. All this is found in the 
paragraph from which the Father makes the above meagre 
quotation, which leaves the reader to infer that Mr. Ingersoll 
assumed his own judgment as the sole standard of morals. 

In this age does the Father require a writer to prove that 
slavery is an evil or polygamy a sin ? that it is wrong to 
punish dissent from religious dogma with torture and death, 
or to carry on aggressive wars to exterminate a whole people 
— men, women and children ? And yet in the article so se- 
verely criticised the writer has eloquently pointed out the 
injustice of slavery, the " slimy filth of polygamy," and the 
atrocious barbarity of persecution and of wars of extermina- 
tion. All this the reader may verify. Why, then, is the 
Father so reckless, so egregiously unfair in both his quota- 
tions and comments ? The very next quotation and comment 
he makes is obnoxious to similar criticism. 

Ingersoll. — (As quoted in the *' Notes.") " Mr. Black comes 
to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact harmony 
with the New Testament." 

Lavibei't. — " Mr. Black comes to no such conclusion. It is 
no doubt true that the Old and New Testaments * are so con- 
nected together that if one is true the other cannot be false.' 



* NOTES ON INGERSOLL. IO9 

This is your opponent's statement, and is very different from 
what you represented him as saying." 

How has the Father succeeded in making his point, small 
at best? By splitting a sentence in two, leaving out an ex- 
tract quoted from Mr. Black's article, and by substituting a 
period for a comma. This was necessary to show up the 
infidel ! And the air of triumph : "This is your opponent's 
statement ! " As if Mr. Ingersol) had not given, in the same 
sentence carved in twain by the Father, almost word for word, 
and without the slightest change of meaning, the language 
used by Judge Black, and which, with a flourish, the Father 
quotes. Here is the whole sentence as it appeared in the 
North Aincricdn- Review, November, 1881, page 490: "Mr. 
Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in 
exact harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are 
* connected together; ' and * that if one is true the other can- 
not be false.' " Thus we see the Father garbled and mutilated 
a sentence; for what purpose we will leave our readers to 
judge. Give me the same liberty with Shakespeare as the 
Father takes with IngersoU, and I will convert the grandest 
sentiments of the noble bard into drivel and nonsense. Such 
discrepancies abound in the " Notes," but it is an unpleasant 
task to note them. 

We now approach a subject worthy the moralist — the 
status of slavery in itself diS related to morality. It seems to be 
agreed that there are immutable principles, the violation of 
which no exigency will justify. The doing of an injury from 
a motive of pure revenge, for example, is an act in and of it- 
self wrong; and no circumstances can make it right. So of 
adultery and some other crimes. There are other acts which, 
under ordinary conditions, are wrong, yet which the exigen- 
cies of circumstance may justify. Generally speaking, the 
right of going from place to place as one's will may dictate is 



I 10 REPLY TO LAMBERT S 

recognized by our best legal authorities. Yet may lunatics 
and vagrants be denied this privilege. Such are exceptional 
cases, sanctioned by the highest code of morals. 

Many years ago I read an able and spicy debate between 
two Presbyterian divines — Rev. J. Blanchard and Rev. N. L. 
Rice, D. D. The question in issue was : " Is slavery in itself 
sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful 
relation ? " Mr. Blanchard affirmed ; Mr. Rice denied. Both 
disputants, of course, acknowledged the authority of Scrip- 
ture, and, by an appeal to this arbiter, Mr. Rice made points 
all around his opponent. That the Old Testament justified 
slavery, in its most absolute sense, was apparent. 

*' Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt 
have shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of 
them shall you buy bondmen and bondmaids. 

** Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn 
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that 
are with you, which they begat in your land : and they shall 
be your possession. 

"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your chil- 
dren after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be 
your bondmen forever, but over your brethren the children 
of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor" 
(Levit. XXV. 44-47). 

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, 
and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Not- 
withstanding if he continue for a day or two, he shall not be 
punished : foi' he is his money'' (Exod. xxi. 20, 21.) 

In the fullest sense, under the Hebrew code, slaves were 
chattels personal. They were merchandise to as full an extent 
as were our Southern bondsmen. 

The reverend gentlemen referred to talked much of slavery 
"in itself," and Mr. Blanchard referred to slavery among 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." I I I 

various peoples as always characterized by the grossest abuses, 
the foulest enormities. But when he came to Scripture he 
was tongue-tied ; for the Bible was to him, as well as to Dr. 
Rice, the infallible rule of faith and practice. 

Without an agreed definition of slavery, the question, " Is 
slavery in itself sinful ? " reminds us of the thirteen-puzzle — 
impossible of solution. Suppose we discuss the question, " Is 
the killing of a human being in itself sinful ? " As a rule it is 
wrong to kill ; as an exception it may be meritorious. We 
may suppose an example where slavery would be justified; 
as in a case of war and by way of retaliation. But in such 
case the slave is held, not for profit, nor under pretence of 
converting him, but to exact justice, to vindicate liberty, and 
generally to conserve the interests of humanity. 

Webster defines slavery as ** The condition of a slave : the 
entire subjection to the will of another." Such is slavery 
pure and simple, as delineated by historic annals, sacred and 
profane, qualified by but few restrictions as to the life and 
person of the slave. Is slavery, as thus defined, sinful? If 
slaves could choose their masters, or even if the majority of 
men were humane, the evils of servitude would, at least, be 
mitigated. But alas ! the slave has no choice of masters, and 
how few of the best of men are worthy to be intrusted with 
irresponsible power ! 

Did the Jews enslave the heathen that they might lead 
them to a knowledge of the true God? The Hebrews were 
never a proselyting race. Exclusive and egotistical, they 
claimed a monopoly of the divine favor. There were ad- 
vanced thinkers among them, who caught, at least, a glimpse 
of the doctrine of universal brotherhood, and portrayed the 
dim vision in prophetic harmonies; and who heard their sweet 
refrains echoed back to them from the towers of a future 
Zion. But to them, as a people, God was tJicir God. He 



112 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

established a protectorate over them ; and even to-day there 
is an undefined (shall I say undefined?) longing for the com- 
ing of a deliverer for Israel. It required a miracle to con- 
vince Peter — even after he had listened to his Master's teach- 
ings, and had received his apostolic commission from his 
hands — that salvation belonged as well to the Gentile as to 
the Jew. No ; the Hebrews held slaves for gain. Their mo- 
tives were not missionary but mercenary. 

Lambert. — "The church during eighteen centuries fought 
against slavery, and taught that all men are equal before 
God." 

Some churches did, while others have been the apolo- 
gists of slavery. On this subject, during the late war, churches 
were divided in sentiment and that division was marked by a 
geographical line. But if slavery be not sinful, why antagonize 
it? Or, if right among the Jews, why wrong among the 
Gentiles ? Was a Jewish more merciful than a Chris- 
tian master? or was it more beneficent to convert the 
heathen to Judaism than it is now to convert them to Chris- 
tianity ? 

All honor to the Catholic Church for having legislated even 
to " protect the slave." 

Says the Father: "A council held in London in 1102 for- 
bade the selling of men in that city, and called it an infamous 
traffic." 

Would the good God authorize an infamous traffic among 
his chosen people ? 

Lambert. — "A council held in 922 declared that he who 
sold another into slavery was guilty of homicide." 

Would God have established a system of wholesale homi- 
cide by express direction ? 

With a settled purpose not to act as umpire between Judge 
Black and Mr. Ingersoll, we will permit each to speak for 



"notes on ingersoll." 113 

himself on the subject of the rapid spread of Christianity, as 
an attestation of its divine mission. 

Black. — " When Jesus of Nazareth announced himself to be 
Christ, the Son of God, in Judea many thousands of persons 
who heard his words and saw his works believed in his divinity 
without hesitation. Since the morning of creation, nothing 
has occurred so wonderful as the rapidity with which this 
religion has spread itself abroad. Men who were in the noon 
of life, when Jesus was put to death as a malefactor, lived to 
see him worshipped as God by organized bodies of believers 
in every province of the Roman empire. In a few more years 
it took possession of the general mind, supplanting all the 
other religions, and wrought a radical change in human 
society. It did this in the face of obstacles, which, according 
to every human calculation, were unsurmountable. It was 
antagonized by all the evil propensities, the sensual wicked- 
ness, and the vulgar crimes of the multitude, as well as the 
polished vices of the luxurious classes. It was most violently 
opposed even by those sentiments and habits of thought 
which were esteemed virtuous, such as patriotism and mili- 
tary heroism. It encountered not only the ignorance and 
superstition, but the learning and philosophy of the time. 
Barbarism and civilization were alike its deadly enemies. The 
priesthood of every established religion and the authority of 
every government were arrayed against it. All were com- 
bined together and, roused to deadly hostility, were overcome, 
not by the enticing words of man's wisdom, but by the simple 
presentation of a pure and peaceful doctrine, preached by 
obscure strangers at the peril of their lives. Is it Mr. Inger- 
soll's idea that this happened through chance? If not, there 
are but two ways of accounting for it : either the evidence by 
which the apostles were able to prove the supernatural origin 
of the Gospels was overwhelming and irresistible, or else its 
8 



I 14 REPLY TO LAMBERT S 

propagation was provided for and carried on by the direct aid 
of the Divine Being himself Between these two infidehty 
may take its choice." 

Ingersoll. — " This argument is applicable to all religions. 
Mohammedans can use it as well as Christians. Mohammed 
was a poor man, a driver of camels. He was without 
education, without influence, and without wealth, and yet 
in a few years he consolidated thousands of tribes, and 
made millions of men confess that there is * one God, and 
Mohammed is his prophet.' His success was a thousand 
times greater during his life than that of Christ. He was not 
crucified ; he was a conqueror. ' Of all men he exerted the 
greatest influence upon the human race.' Never in the world's 
history did a religion spread with the rapidity of his. It 
burst like a storm over the fairest portions of the globe. . . 
It will not do to take the ground that the rapid rise and 
spread of a religion demonstrates its divine character. Years 
before Gautama died, his religion was established and his dis- 
ciples were numbered by millions. His doctrines were not 
enforced by the sword, but by an appeal to the hopes, the 
fears and the reason of mankind; and more than one-third of 
the human race are to-day the followers of Gautama. His 
religion has outlived all that existed in his time; and, according 
to Dr. Draper, there is no other country in the world except 
India that has the religion to-day that it had at the birth 
of Jesus Christ.' Gautama believed in the equality of all 
men; abhorred the spirit of caste, and proclaimed justice, 
mercy and education for all." 

Ingersoll. — "The history of the world is filled with instances 
where men have honestly supposed that they had received 
communications from angels and gods." 

Lambert. — " How do you know that thiey honestly sup- 
posed? Must you not, from the nature of the case, take their 
words for the honesty of their supposition ? " 



115 

Sure!}' this is vain quibbling. However mistaken men 
may be, we usually judge of their sincerity by their general 
truthfulness and probity of character. But, however honest 
they may be, we distrust the revelations of those who graphi- 
cally describe the unseen world or testify of those who set at 
nought the laws of nature, which our experience tells us are 
fixed and invariable. There are spiritualists whose word, in 
regard to ordinary events, I would not discount ; yet before 
accepting their testimony in regard to the supernatural, I 
would require proof equivalent to demonstration. So also 
of prayer cures and " modern day miracles " of every sort. 

Lambert. — " The apostles claimed a divine communication 
and mission. They worked miracles in proof of their claim. 
These miracles proved both to the apostles themselves and 
to those who witnessed them that there could be no mistake 
about their claim. 'What we must say is, that you are mis- 
taken' when you assume to be a better judge, a more reliable 
witness, of events that transpired nineteen hundred years ago 
in Judea than those were who then lived, saw those events 
with their own eyes, or heard them with their own ears. 
Would your statements, under the circumstances, be taken 
against theirs in any court of justice ? " 

Here, again, is a begging of the question by one who was 
to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. Here it is 
assumed that miracles were wrought, the very statement de- 
nied in the controversy. The church might as well face the 
real issue : Is there sujfieient evidence to e olivine e intelligent 
and unbiased lovers of truth that viiraeles, as recorded, ivere 
ever wrought ? The skeptic says, along with miracles we read 
of witchcraft and demoniacal possessions. Witches have been 
banished from educated society, and demonology is a thing of 
the past. The insanity of the present was the " evil posses- 
sion," not only of the Jews but of other nations. A crazy 



Ii6 REPLY TO Lambert's 

man was supposed to be possessed of a devil ; and yet, by the 
light of modern science, we see that insanity is a physical dis- 
ease, and all enlightened physicians treat it accordingly. 

If, then, we see a bundle of superstitions with miracle 
wonders in the same envelope, we are apt to question the 
latter as we do the former. We desire a modicum, at least, 
of the same kind of evidence which satisfied those who have 
left a record of what they professed to have seen. The igno- 
rant can still be made to believe in witches, ghosts, and demons ; 
but is it right to abuse the credulity of unlearned and unre- 
flecting minds ? It might not be well to let a flood-tide of 
light on humanity all at once. It is vain to feed a man more 
than he can assimilate — to indoctrinate him with more truth 
than he can grasp and hold. The notions of men should not 
be too rudely shocked. Light must be graduated to the eye. 
All this, however, does not imply that we should teach posi- 
tive error nor withhold truth from those who earnestly seek it. 
But how long must humanity remain in the vestibule of 
knowledge ? How long before fear will cease to be the ruling 
element of religion? We read of many miracles to-day, not 
only among Catholics but among Protestants as well. All 
seem to be equally well authenticated, and yet what scientific 
man will listen patiently to a recital of these wonders ? We 
repeat, it is too bad to impose upon the credulous. Apropos : 
[ Years ago a servant girl, with a kindly interest for my spiritual 
welfare, for which I shall ever be grateful, offered me the loan 
of a Catholic publication. I have forgotten the name of the 
book but shall not soon forget one legend it contained. It 
was in substance this : A beautiful girl had two lovers ; they 
fought in jealous rage and both were killed. So incensed 
were their friends at the innocent cause of their " taking off'' 
that they cut off the head of the dear girl and cast it in a 
well. She had died without confession. A bishop passed by. 



"notes on ingersoll. 117 

and the head ascended to the top of the well and asked leave to 
confess, which it did, and the soul was seen (I do not remem- 
ber by whom) to ascend to heaven ! This is only a specimen 
of legends innumerable, which are put forth as verities — equal 
verities as apostolic miracles — by a church claiming to be 
immaculate ! The book was not endorsed by an oecumenical 
council, but it was the kind of food which the shepherd gave 
to his hungry flock./ 

But there is another class which professes to open to our 
vision the portals of the unseen world : spiritualists, men and 
women, who believe what they tell us, for dying they confess the 
faith. Their expositions of the mysteries of spirit life are quite 
as well vouched for as are the kindred claims of the Catholic 
Church. They invite us to their seances, and exhibit a candor, 
which the church should emulate, by submitting their claims 
to scientific scrutiny. They claim to *' materialize " the spirits 
of the dead, and to bring them face to face with their friends 
and kindred in the flesh, who frequently recognize them , and, 
with a waft of fragrance, consign bouquets to their ethereal 
fingers. If the Father derides their claims will they not say 
to him as he said to Ingersoll, '* * What we must say is that 
you are mistaken' when you assume to be a better judge, a 
more reliable witness, of events which transpired before our 
eyes than we who saw them ; ' would your statements under the 
circumstances be taken against ' ours * in any court of justice ? ' " 
On this question the spiritualists have the vantage-ground ; for 
what they are ready to swear they have seen or heard they 
might testify to ; but what the church asserts in regard to apos- 
tolic and patristic miracles is, at best, but hearsay, and not ad- 
missible as evidence in courts of justice. 

The question of the verity of miracles, when divested of 
theological flummery, is a simple one. It involves only a 
question o^ fact. Why should the ignorant and superstitious 



ii8 REPLY TO Lambert's 

be exclusively selected as witnesses of supernatural manifesta- 
tions ? Ignorance is not, per se, holiness, nor credulity wis- 
dom. We all desire to know the truth, and it is not our 
crime that we can read and write. Here is a question on the 
answer of which is suppo.sed to hinge the eternal destiny of 
millions. Give us light; give us proof. If miracles can be 
wrought they can be proved. God is not parsimonious of 
his favors. Every breeze that comes to us laden with perfume 
whispers of his love; every harvest bespeaks the bountifulness 
of his gifts; and tiny insects, no less than blazing suns, evi- 
dence to us the wonder of his works, and the wisdom and 
beneficence of his provisions for his creatures, from the small- 
est to the greatest. 

Would you convince us of miracles, submit your tests to 
scientific men, such as compose the French Academy of 
Science, for example. One favorable report from such a body 
of men would outweigh, in intelligent minds, the combined 
testimony of a thousand monasteries, and ten million monks 
and nuns. 

Is the request unreasonable ? Did not the patriarchs of old 
ask of God a ** sign " that he would fulfil his promises to 
them ? Scripture tells us they did, and that the signs were 
given them. Will Deity feel insulted because we ask for 
proof that he speaks and acts as fallible mortals tell us he 
does ? Ah ! there is not the rub. The God-insulting theory, 
unrealized as is its hollowness by many who urge it against uS, 
is not what disturbs the votaries of the miraculous. It is 
merely a pretext. The real point is this : the proof is not 
forthcoming at the right times and under required circum- 
stances. The inquisitive eye and the experimental crucible of 
science are dreaded. Thar is the rub! 

Lambert. — "A false prophet does not destroy the possibility 
of recognizing a true one, as a counterfeit note does not de- 
stroy the value of a genuine note." 



'* NOTES ON INGERSOLL." II9 

Granted. But false prophets make us distrustful of pro- 
phetic pretensions, as counterfeit notes excite us to a rigid test 
of the genuine. What is desired is proof; not that " Grimes 
is dead," for death comes to all ; but ample proof that Grimes 
has risen, or made his presence manifest to those who sum- 
moned his spirit from the " vasty deep," for here we are met 
by antecedent improbability. 



120 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 



CHAPTER XVII. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XVL 

The Authorship of the Gospels — The Gospels do not purport to have been Written 
by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — Diverse Renderings in Manuscripts of 
the Scriptures — Orthodox Authority — Original Purity of Text of Scripture 
Early Lost — Catholic Authority — The Bible does not prove itself — Transla- 
tions of Scripture — Miracles. 

As prefatory to our reply to Chapter XVL of the " Notes," 
we observe, that here is a subject, the authorship of the Gos- 
pels, worthy the pen of the profound scholar and of the most 
astute and searching criticism. No one who loves truth de- 
sires victory at the expense of truth. Moreover men love cer- 
tainty ; they are too lazy to accept bullion when the ready 
coin is equally convenient ; to formulate by laborious pro- 
cess, even in matters of faith, when a perfectly infallible for- 
mula is at hand. If the Bible be an unerring guide in all matters 
of faith and practice, or if there be a divinely commissioned 
priesthood that will lead us to a knowledge of all spiritual 
truth necessary to our happiness here and hereafter, all sane 
men, being assured of the fact, will rejoice and prefer certainty 
to doubt and speculation. Doubt is not captiousness, investi- 
gation is not the child of prejudice, but the issue of a wedlock 
between truth and the human soul, consecrated by the purest 
and holiest love. 

Who wrote the Gospels ? On such a question as this we 
had expected, at least, dignified reasoning and learned criti- 
cism. We were disappointed. In place thereof we find ireful 
captiousness and, in the main, assertion substituted for proof, 
statement for argument. 



"notes on INGERSOLL." 121 

IiiCcrsDll. — " The fact is, no one knows who made the ' state- 
ments of the evangelists.' 

" There are three important manuscripts upon which the 
Christian world relies. * The first appeared in the Catalogue 
of the Vatican in 1475. This contains the Old Testament. 
Of the New it contains the four Gospels — the Acts, the seven 
Catholic Epistles, nine of the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, as far as the fourteenth verse of the ninth 
chapter,' — and nothing more. This is known as the Codex 
Vatican. * The second, the Alexandrine, was presented to 
King Charles the First, in 1628. It contains the Old and New 
Testaments, with some exceptions ; passages are wanting in 
Matthew, in John, and in 2d Corinthians, It also contains the 
Epistles of Clemens Romanus, a letter of Athanasius, and the 
tj-eatise of Eusebius on the Psalms.' The last is the Sinaitic 
Codex, discovered about 1850, at the Convent of St. Catherine 
on Mount Sinai. It contains the Old and New Testaments, 
and in addition the entire Epistle of Barnabas, and a portion 
of the Shepherd of Hermas — two books which, up to the be- 
ginning of the fourth century, were looked upon by many as 
Scripture.' In this manuscript, or codex, the Gospel of St. 
Mark concludes with the eighth verse of the sixteenth chap- 
ter, leaving out the frightful passage : ' Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall 
be damned.' " 

Lambert. — " The fact is, there can be no reasonable doubt 
whatever that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gos- 
pels attributed to them. . . . You have as good reason, and no 
better, to say that no one knows who wrote Shakespeare, 
" Paradise Lost," the Divine Comedy of Dante, Caesar, Livy, 
Tacitus, Josephus or Homer. No one ever doubts that those 
books were written by the authors to whom they arc attrib- 
uted." 



122 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

Certainly as to Homer and Shakespeare the Father is 
in fault. But waiving this, is there no difference in the amount 
of proof which a just criticism requires in establishing the au- 
thenticity of the Gospels and of the works referred to ? The 
works of Shakespeare, Livy, Tacitus, etc., are professedly 
merely human productions, written to regale the imagination 
and to teach us the facts of history, while the Gospels speak 
to us as from the skies. They come freighted with a record 
of miracles and wonders stupendous. They tell us of unseen 
worlds and of spirits and angels intangible. They assure us 
of facts for which we find no parallel in human experience, and 
above all, aver that, unless we believe these things, and submit 
to a certain ceremonial rite — as to which the Christian world 
is at sad variance, both as to mode and effect — we shall be 
damned; that is, cast into a lake of fire, to there **burn for- 
ever unconsumed." Moreover these writers do not agree 
among themselves.* Such being the case, our eternal interests 
demand that we should know both who speaks and by what 
authority we are addressed. There are many different render- 
ings of the text of Shakespeare ; but one would suppose that 
if God inspired a book on the acceptance of which the salva- 
tion of a world depended, it would not only be free from am- 
biguity but that its authorship would be placed beyond dispute, 
and its text preserved from liability to mutilation and interpo- 
lation. That which is intended as a " lamp unto the feet, and 
a light unto the path," should give forth no dim nor deflected 
rays. The poor wanderer in the swamps and morasses of 
error, when he casts his longing gaze over the drear expanse, 
should be able to know the beacon light which is set to guide 



"^ We are told that circumstantial variety with substantial agreement in the 
testimony of witnesses is a proof of their veracity. But what of circumstantial 
contradiction, and of irreconcilable statements? 



"notes on ingersoll." 123 

him to the haven of safety from the ignis fatims which leads 
on to ruin. 

Lambert. — '* The more important the contents of a book are 
to mankind the more surely will its genuineness be admitted 
or denied from the beginning." 

Such is the case in periods of advanced civilization ; but 
uneducated and barbarous peoples are so prone to superstition 
and to an unquestioning faith that they are ever ready to seize 
upon anything as true which ministers to their love of the 
marvellous. 

The age in which the Gospels were written was not a criti- 
cal age. The art of printing was then unknown; copying 
was laborious, and a belief in necromancy, demonology and 
witchcraft was held by Jews and Gentiles alike. In popu- 
lar belief miraculous powers were supposed to be pos- 
sessed by good and bad alike, though derived from different 
sources. 

Is the present age willing to receive the legends of those 
times with the same implicit credence that they do the leading 
facts of history and science about the truth of which the edu- 
cated minds of the world are in substantial accord ? Why 
ignore facts ? Why forget that this is not only the iron and 
golden but par excellence the typographical age? That la- 
borious research has unsealed the repertories of the past 
and brought to light treasures of knowledge which have 
been hidden from the wisdom of ages ? We know more of 
ancient Egypt than the average Egyptian knew of his own 
times and country; more of Galilee, of its faiths and hopes, 
and fears, than those who fished in its waters and struck their 
tents by its shores; more of the mysticism of the past than 
those who waved the magic wand, held converse with familiar 
spirits and traced by the trackless stars the course of human 
destiny. And yet let us not indulge in vainglory. We have 



124 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

only begun to learn — only taken our first lesson in the horn- 
book of knowledge. But in the light of our present advance- 
ment and of our knowledge of the past, how futile to say : 
" It is a remarkable fact that the authenticity or genuineness 
of the four Gospels was never brought in question until 
inodern times, and then only by a few infidels ; and even these 
confine themselves to bold, naked, groundless statements." 

In the first place, little attention was paid to the small sect 
of ** despised Galileans." It was only after Christianity had 
become a power that special notice was taken of it. At 
Christ's death the number of the disciples, as far as Scripture 
informs us, was about one hundred and twenty (Acts i. 15). 
It does not follow because the " crime of unbelief," or heresy, 
was punished, that those who inflicted the penalty cared to 
look critically into the history or tenets of the offender. The 
mouth of the dissenter was gagged, his books burned, and 
himself tortured and slain. What use had orthodoxy for 
other argument than fagot, wedge and thumb-screw? What 
had theology to do with the doctrines of " infidels," or history, 
save by a pa.ssing notice, with a record of their lives and suf- 
ferings? They were criminals. They dared to think ; "away 
with them to the dungeon and the rack!" The Jews were 
intolerant of Christianity, and Christian professors in turn 
persecuted Jew and infidel. 

Lambert. — " The genuineness of the four Gospels was never 
brought in question until modern times." " Modern times " is 
exceedingly indefinite; but, if so, why were they not ques- 
tioned ? There is no evidence that, when the Gospels were 
written, they bore on their face any evidence that they were 
composed or claimed to have been written by the authors to 
whom they are now ascribed. Justin speaks of them as the 
" memoirs of the apostles," although neither Mark nor Luke 
were apostles. *' But all additions are later and presuppose 



"notes on ingersoll. 125 

a collection of the Gospels " (" Encyclopaedia of Religious 
Knowledge," vol. i., p. 268).* 

So we may infer, on the highest authority, that the titles, 
" The Gospel according to Matthew," etc., were not placed 
there when the Gospels were written, but at some future time, 
no one knows by whom. 

Lambert. — '' These Gospels were received in the earliest 
times as genuine, and were quoted by the earliest Christian 
writers as the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." 

Yet it is a fact that the earliest Christian apologist, Justin 
Martyr, though he quotes from words contained in Matthew, 
Mark and Luke (never once from John and only once from 
Mark), yet does not mention the name of either, but quotes 
almost exclusively from Christ's words (" Encyclopaedia of Re- 
ligious Knowledge," vol. ii., p. 1220). Justin also says, these 
writings were also called Gospels and were written by the 
apostles <?r their companions. Thus we see that in the earliest 
approach to the times of the apostles there seemed to be no 
definite idea in the mind of a Christian author and saint as to 
who were the writers of the first four books of the New Tes- 
tament. Had the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 
been prefixed to those works, or had they been popularly 
known as the writers thereof, would not Saint Justin Martyr 
have referred to them as such ? We are told that Celsus who 
lived in the second century. Porphyry who lived in the third, 
and. Julian who lived in the fourth, referred to these books as 
having been written by their reputed authors. If so it proves 
nothing to the purpose ; for between the times those books 
were written and the writers referred to lived and wrote, there 

* As I shall have frequent occasion to refer to this scholarly and exhaustive 
work, I will say that its authors are not infidels but Christians 3 one of whom is 
the learned Philip Schaff, D. D., Professor in Union Theological Seminary, 
N. Y. 



126 REPLY TO Lambert's 

was ample time for some one to write over these books what 
was not originally there, /. c, ** Gospel according to," etc. But 
who were those men who earliest attested the authorship of 
the first four books of the New Testament ? Honest men, no 
doubt, but were they careful in their methods and clear and 
rational in their conceptions of religious truth ? Were they 
free from the fanciful notions common to their age? I quote 
from ** Mosheim's Church History," Part H., chapter iii., a work 
of the most rigid orthodox stamp : " But the * Expositions of the 
Revelations ' by Justin Martyr, and of the four Gospels by 
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, together with several illus- 
trations of the Mosaic history of the creation by other ancient 
writers, are lost. The loss of these ancient productions is the 
less to be regretted, as we know, with certainty, their vast 
inferiority to the expositions of the Holy Scriptures that ap- 
peared in succeeding times. Among the persons already 
mentioned none deserved the name of an able and judicious 
interpreter of the sacred text. They all attributed a double 
sense to the words of Scripture ; the one obvious and literal, 
the other Jiidden and mysterious, which lay concealed, as it 
were, under the veil of the outward letter. The former 
they treated with the utmost neglect and turned the whole 
force of their genius and application to unfold the latter. 
Or, in other words, they were more studious to darken the 
Scriptures with their idle fictions than to investigate their 
true and natural sense. Some of them also forced th^ ex- 
pressions of sacred writ out of their obvious meaning in order 
to apply them to the support of their philosophical systems ; 
of which dangerous and pernicious attempts Clemens of Alex- 
andria is said to have given the first example." 

Irenseus also, a learned and devout Christian Father, bears 
ample testimony to the " four and no more " of the Gospel 
writers. His reasons seem to the unlettered mind of the present 



"notes on ingersoll. 127 

as queer. Yet he was a pillar of the ancient church, and he shall 
speak for himself: " It is impossible," he says, " that the Gos- 
pels can be more or less than they are. For as there are four 
zones in the world we inhabit, and four principal winds, while 
the church is* spread abroad throughout the earth, and the 
pillars and basis of the church are the gospel and the spirit of 
life, it is right that she should have four pillars, exhaling im- 
mortality on every side, and restoring renewed vitality on men. 
From which fact it follows that the word has given us four 
versions of the Gospels written by one Spirit." 

But what has all this to do with the question of authorship ? 
" Much every way," for these are the witnesses called, and we 
wish to see whether they have level heads ; whether they are 
matter-of-fact men, who testify to facts only, or whether, even 
though honest, they are so imbued with a spirit of a romantic 
theology that they are liable to mistake their own fanciful no- 
tions for the truths of history. 

But supposing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote 
the Gospels, are we certain they wrote them in their entirety 
as we have them now ? We are certain they did not. We 
hear the Bible called " God's Book," as if it had been written 
as a unit, as one entire work, all of the parts to be bound to- 
gether according to the present order of arrangement, and 
translated as we have it in the ** authorized version." And 
yet the books of both the Old and New Testaments were 
written at various times, by different authors, very generally 
for a specific and temporary purpose, with no direction as to 
future use or disposition ; and, as to the four Gospels, without 
any pretence of divine direction. Not only so, but not until 
the sixteenth century did the Catholic Church settle for itself 
the Canon of Scripture, and it is well known that the Council 
of Trent then incorporated into the canon several books 
which the Protestant world regards as apocryphal. 



128 KEPLY TO Lambert's' 

Which is right ? Has the Catholic Church added spurious 
works to the word of God ? or has the Protestant Church 
eHminated therefrom portions of the sacred text? CathoHcs 
beheve in their Bible, which the laity seldon:i read, because the 
church says it is inspired ; Protestants, because they are in- 
structed so to believe by parents and preachers. Yet how few 
of either class can name or number the books of the Bible, 
much less give one satisfactory reason for believing in the au- 
thenticity or inspiration of any particular book contained in 
the Scriptures ! But let us return to the question ; are we 
certain that we possess the Scriptures as they were originally 
written ? Here let me say that I will not refer, in discussing 
this point, to infidel but to Christian authorities. I quote 
from " Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge," vol. i., pp. 268- 
270 : " Before the final close of the canon (end of the fourth 
century) there were probably few single manuscripts of the 
entire New Testament. [Of the thousand known manuscripts 
of the New Testament only about thirty include all the books.] 
Some of those of the fourth and fifth centuries, now preserved, 
contain not only the Greek Old Testament but also writings 
which, though not canonical, were read in the churches and 
studied by catechumens, . . . the arrangement of the Epistles 
differed ; indeed, there were no models. . . . Turning to the 
internal history of the New Testament text it is evident that its 
original perfect purity zvas eaidy lost. The quotations of the 
latter half of the second century contain readings which agree 
with later texts, but are not apostolic. Irenaeus alludes (Adv. 
hoer. V. 30, § I.) to the difference between the copies ; and 
Origen, early in the third century, expressly declares that 
matters are growing worse and worse (in. Matt. tom. xv. 14), 
as is proved by the quotations of the Fathers of the third and 
fourth centuries. From this time on we have the manuscript 
text of each century : the writings of the Fathers, the various 



"notes on ingersoll." 129 

Oriental and Occidental versions, all testifying to varieties 
of reading for almost every verse, which undoubtedly occa- 
sioned many more or less important departures from the sense 
of the original text. How came this ? The early church did 
not know anything of that anxious clinging to the letter which 
characterizes the scientific rigor and piety of modern times, 
and, therefore, were not so bent on preserving the exact words. 
Moreover, the first copies were made rather for private than for 
public use : copyists were careless, often wrote from dictation, 
and were liable to misunderstand. Attempted improvements 
of the text in grammar and style; proposed corrections in 
history and geography ; efforts to harmonize the quotations 
in the New Testament with the Greek of the Septuagint, but 
especially to harmonize the Gospels ; the writing out of abbre- 
viations ; incorporation of marginal notes in the text ; the em- 
bellishing of the Gospel narratives with stories drawn from 
non-apostolic though trustworthy sources (e. g.,]o\\\-\ vii. 53 
to viii. 1 1, and Mark xvi. 9 to end) — it is to these causes that 
we must attribute the very numerous readings or textual vari- 
ations." 

Thus we learn from the fathers of the church, and from some 
of the ablest orthodox critics of the age, that we are not and 
cannot be certain which of the multitudinous manuscripts 
(over a thousand in number, with different readings, amount- 
ing to tens of |:housands) is correct, or whether either is en- 
tirely genuine. These differences extend to words, to phrases, 
to parts of chapters, and to whole chapters. In our revised 
edition we are told in regard to Mark xvi. that the two oldest 
Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from the 
9th verse to the end of the chapter, and that some other au- 
thorities have a different ending to the Gospel. In the same 
edition, of John vii. and viii. all of the verses from the 
53d of the former to the nth of the latter are treated as 
9 



130 REPLY TO Lambert's 

spurious and left out of the narrative. By the same revisers 
John V. 4 is omitted because not genuine. For the same 
reason the conclusion of the Lord's prayer: " For thine is the 
kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen," is ex- 
cluded from the revised text. We might multiply authorities, 
but a sufficient number have been cited to show that even the 
best scholars cannot be certain of the original text of the 
Gospels. 

But supposing it possible that, by a comparison of the old- 
est manuscripts, we may find the true text of the evangelists, 
can we even then procure a perfect translation ? Luther trans- 
lated the Scriptures, and of his work Zwinglius says : " Thou 
corruptest, O Luther ! the word of God. Thou art known to 
be an open and notorious perverter of the Holy Scriptures. 
How much are we ashamed of thee now, whom we had once 
so much respected ! " 

The Zwinglian translation Luther condemned ; and he 
called its translators " a set of fools, asses, antichrists, and 
impostors." 

The translation of CEcolampadius and Basil divines, Beza 
denounces as absolutely wicked. He also condemns in as 
severe terms the translation of Castalis. 

Of Calvin's translation Molenaeus says : " Calvin makes the 
texts of the gospel leap up and down. He does violence to 
the letter and makes additions to the text." The same author 
says that Beza changes the text, and Castalis declares, " it 
would require a large volume to mark down the mistakes and 
errors which occur in Beza's translation." 

We quote the above as given in a Catholic work. It is a 
sad commentary on translations of Scripture made by learned 
and honest men. But surely the Catholic Church can help us 
out of our dilemma. That church which is feet to the lame 
and eyes to the blind, from which alone we may secure a 



"notes on ingersoll. 131 

passport of admission to the celestial abode ; the repository 
of all sacred truth ; the infallible interpreter of the word and 
of tradition ; surely such a guide will not permit us to plod 
our weary way along in despondency and doubt, nor allow 
tlie pure stream of divine truth to become polluted at the foun- 
tain head. Let us see. Two infallible (?) editions of the 
Latin Vulgate were made by authority of two popes not 
thirty years apart from each other; and yet they differ in 
more than two thousand places ! " Sextus V. issued a bull 
with an anathema against any man who should change his 
authorized Vulgate, even in the least particle {in minima par- 
ticuld). Yet Clement the Eighth had the audacity in despite 
of said bull to order a new translation, changing it more 
than two thousand times, and sometimes very seriously, to the 
amount of clauses and whole verses." So said Alexander 
Campbell in his debate with Bishop Purcell, p. 274. Did the 
Bishop deny the statement? No; he only said (p. 286): 
" That only shows that the popes never taught that their per- 
sonal opinions were to be received as articles of faith, as my 
friend would persuade you they did. Private authority should 
not presume to alter the authorized version. This was the 
amount of the prohibition." 

And why not alter it if the translation of Sextus was not 
authoritative, which it could not logically be if there was no 
certainty of its accuracy. Surely the Bible has much to do 
with faith and morals, in regard to which the church claims to 
be the infallible judge. The pope in his own sacred person is 
also infallible. Pardon me ; I had almost forgotten that, when 
Bishop Purcell uttered the declaration quoted above, the doc- 
trine of papal infallibility had not been promulged. In the 
light of these facts where can we find our infallible Bible? 

Black. — ** Nothing was said by the most virulent enemies 
against the personal honesty of the evangelists." 



132 REPLY TO Lambert's 

Ingersoll. — " How is this known ? " 

Lambert. — " It is known from the fact that neither in tradi- 
tion nor history is there anything directly or indirectly throw- 
ing the least suspicion or shadow of doubt on their honesty, 
integrity, and holiness of life." 

The truth is, history, save as written by themselves, is silent 
on the subject* ** Tradition" is an equivocal word; but if it 
has spoken let us know what it said, and in what ages its 
voice was heard and its words recorded. 

Mr. Black having made the presumed honesty ot the evan- 
gelists the basis of his argument, the burden of proving his 
statement rested on him. But, as we have shown, at the be- 
ginning of the Christian era the disciples were few in number, 
and were not esteemed, at first, worthy of more than a passing 
notice by historians. The personal character of unlettered 
fishermen and tax-gatherers was not likely to be discussed 
pro or con. What should have drawn more attention to 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John than to those men in the 
same social rank, whose names perished with their lives ? 
Not because they wrote the Gospels ; for while they lived, as 
far as history teaches, their names were neither prefixed nor 
subscribed to those books. 

We are told that the infidels who wrote against Christianity 
admitted the genuineness of the miracles recorded in the New 
Testament. Why? Did they witness them ? N(>; but mir- 
acles were then believed in the same as witchcraft and de- 
moniacal possessions. It was the age of astrology, soothsay- 
ing, and kindred superstitions. It seems that Moses believed 

■^This is almost literally true ; and yet, as quoted liy Father Lambert, 4th ed., 
*' Notes," p. 147, Josephus testifies that James and some other Christians were 
stoned as breakers of the law. Also Suetonius, who says that Claudius Caesar 
expelled the Jews from Rome because they raised continual tumults at the insti- 
gation of Christ. 



"notes on ingersoll. 133 

that Pharaoh's magicians could turn a rod into a hVing ser- 
pent. Who believes it now? In the early ages it was as- 
sumed \\\di\. men could work miracles, such as healing the sick, 
raising the dead; and they met the claims of the evangelists, 
not by denial, but by asserting ; and they believed no doubt, 
that the men of their faith and the philosophers of the 
past had performed as great wonders as were ascribed to 
Christ and his apostles. Ours is a different age. It is not 
inclined to accept a history of the supernaturally marvellous 
as a verity, whether it relate to past or present experience, 
without an amount of proof commensurate to the demands it 
makes upon its credulity. Gibbon, in chapter xv. of his great 
history, says : "Accustomed long since to observe and to re- 
spect the invariable order of nature, our reason, or at least 
our imagination, is not prepared to sustain the Visible action 
of Deity. But in the first ages of Christianity the situation 
of mankind was extremely different. The most curious, or 
the most credulous, among the pagans were often persuaded 
to enter a society which asserted an actual claim of miraculous 
powers. The primitive Christians perpetually trod on mystic 
grounds, and their minds were exercised by the habit of be- 
lieving the most extraordinary events. They felt, or they 
fancied, that on every side they were assaulted by demons, 
confronted by visions, instructed by prophesy, and surprisingly 
delivered from danger, sickness, and from death itself, by the 
supplications of the church. The real or imaginary prodigies, 
of which they so frequently conceived themselves to be the 
objects, the instruments, or the spectators, very happily dis- 
posed them to adopt with the same ease, but with far greater 
justice, the wonders of evangelic history; and thus miracles, 
which exceeded not the measure of their own experience, in- 
spired them with the most lively assurance of mysteries which 
were acknowledged to surpass the limits of their under- 
standing." 



134 REPLY TO Lambert's 

In a superstitious age wonders of all kinds abound, and 
from friend and foe of any particular faith find ready credence. 
Such was the apostolic age. Many of the Jews no doubt 
credited the miracles said to have been wrought by Christ and 
his followers. Why should they not? Their sacred books 
told of prodigies as marvellous as any the evangelists record. 
If a heathen magician could turn sticks into snakes, and if an 
ass, in human speech, could rebuke a prophet, why should 
a Jew marvel at anything ? 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 135 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XVII. 

Miracles — Hume — Gibbon — Witchcraft a Superstition — Catholic Testimony — 
"The Star in the East" and the " Wise Men " — Fenelon and the Bible Ques- 
tion — Josephus — Tooley Street Tailors — The Prodigies Attending the Birih of 
Jesus — Renan on Miracles. 

** The question of miracles seems now to be admitted on 
all hands to be simply a question of evidence." (** The Reign 
of Law," by the Duke of Argyll.) 

" It is not for us to demonstrate the impossibility of a mira- 
cle ; it is for the miracle to demonstrate itself. What proof 
have we that sirens and centaurs do not exist except that they 
have never been seen ? What has banished from the civilized 
world a belief in the old demonology, except the observation 
that all the deeds formerly attributed to demons are well 
enough explained without their agency ? A being who does 
not reveal himself by an act, is, for science, a being without 
existence " (Ernest Renan). 

Ingersoll. — " How is it known that it was claimed during 
the life of Christ that he wrought a miracle? " 

Lambert. — " It is known from four histories written by four 
well-known historians who were contemporaries of the Jewish 
historian Josephus. Their names are Matthew, Mark, Luke 
and John." 

Ingersoll. — "And if the claim was made, how is it known 
that it was not denied ? " 



136 REPLY TO Lambert's 

Lambert. — " There is contemporary evidence that the claim 
was made and admitted, and there is no evidence whatever 
that it was ever denied. On the contrary, all history takes 
those miracles as facts that have been passed upon, as no 
longer legitimate subjects of dispute." 

Right here let me inquire whether it is true that all history 
takes these alleged miracles as facts. Gibbon was a historian 
second to few, if any; did he believe in miracles? Hume 
was one of the most erudite and accomplished of historians ; 
did he believe in miracles ? He wrote a treatise to prove 
that no possible amount of testimony was sufficient to render 
a miracle credible. As to Gibbon, further on. I dissent from 
Hume's doctrine, and agree with Argyll that the question of 
miracles is a question of evidence. Can we or should we 
accept as true the statement that miracles were ever wrought — 
such as healing the sick, raising the dead, the conversion of 
water into wine, and the manufacture from fiv^e loaves and two 
fishes of bread and fish sufficient in quantity to feed five thou- 
sand rnen and a multitude of women and children, leaving 
twelve basketfuls remaining ? Should we accept such state- 
ments on the same kind and amount of evidence as we do the 
reign of a monarch, the history of a battle or the constitution 
of a State ? No, for there is an antecedent improbability that 
such things ever happened. They contradict human experi- 
ence. They imply the intervention of a force unknown either 
to science or philosophy. Not only so, but we find them 
wedded to superstitions which the educated world has long 
ago discarded. 

Who now questions that astrology was a compound of 
superstition and imposition, or that witchcraft was a delusion? 
Not the Catholic Church, surely, for I hold in my hand " The 
Faith of our Fathers," by the Rt. Rev. James Gibbons, D. D., 
in which he speaks of the " ridiculous charge of witchcraft " 



"notes on ingersoll." 137 

(p. 245). He says : "And who is ignorant of the number of 
innocent creatures that suffered death in the same State 
[Massachusetts] on the ridiculous charge of witchcraft toward 
the end of the seventeenth century?" Yet astrologers are 
called in to testify to the birth of Jesus. They saw his star 
in the east and came to worship him (Matt. ii. i, 9-1 1). 
And who were those " wise men," Magi or magicians ? They 
were the illusionists, the sleight-of-hand performers of the east, 
filled with the religion of Zoroaster and all the mysticism 
which a warm climate could generate in superstitious brains. 
Let me introduce you to these worshipful witnesses. Gibbon 
in his history, chapter viii., says : " The memory of Zoroaster, 
the ancient prophet and philosopher of the Persians, was still 
revered in the east ; but the obsolete and mysterious lan- 
guage in which the Zandavesta [Persian Bible] was composed 
opened a field of dispute to seventy sects, who explained the 
fundamental doctrines of their religion and were all indiffer- 
ently derided by the crowd of infidels, who rejected the divine 
mission and the miracles of the prophet. To suppress the 
idolaters, reunite the schismatics, and confute the unbelievers 
by the infallible decision of a general council, the pious 
Artaxerxes summoned the Magi from all parts of his domin- 
ions. These priests, who had so long sighed in contempt and 
obscurity, obeyed the welcome summons ; and on the ap- 
pointed day appeared to about the number of eighty thousand. 
But as the debates of so tumultuous an assembly could not 
have been directed by the authority of reason, or influenced 
by the art of policy, the Persian synod was reduced, by suc- 
cessive operations, to forty thousand, to four thousand, to four 
hundred, to forty and at last to seven Magi, the most re- 
spected for their learning and piety. One of these, Erdivirath, 
a young but holy prelate, received from the hands of his 
brethren three cups of soporiferous wine. He drank them 



138 REPLY TO Lambert's 

off and instantly fell into a long and profound sleep. As soon 
as he waked he related to the king and to the believing 
multitude his journey to heaven, and his intimate con- 
ference with the Deity. Every doubt was silenced by this 
supernatural evidence ; and the articles of faith of Zoroaster 
were fixed with equal authority and precision." These were 
the kind of men who saw the star in the east (or from the east) 
and went to proffer the gold and frankincense and myrrh to 
the infant Saviour. But if the Magi suspected the divine 
mission of Christ they were doing violence to their own faith, 
for Herodotus says : ** The people (of Persia) reject the use 
of temples, of altars and of statues, and smile at the follies of 
those nations who imagine that the gods are sprung from or 
bear any affinity with the human nature." If this be so, 
would the Magi have believed that a god-man, born of 
woman, had descended upon the earth ? 

If, as learned priests and bishops contend, the Bible does 
not prove itself, how can it prove what it contains — especially 
the most incredible part, the miraculous ? Will tradition help 
us out ? If so, give us the most serviceable traditions and we 
will read them with care and discuss them with candor. Or, 
shall we invoke extrinsic evidence to convince us of the credi- 
bility of the entire gospel narratives ? If so, where shall we 
look for the extrinsic evidence that may suffice for that pur- 
pose ? Before we can credit miracles we must insist on the 
most indubitable proof — not such as may suffice in a question 
of a common historical or every day fact, but such as disin- 
terested, educated and unbiased minds would deem sufficient. 

Should the Father bring me word that my friend, his neigh- 
bor, was dead and that he was with him when he expired, I 
would credit his statement implicitly ; but if he should assure 
me that a priest or bishop had restored the dead one to life — 
I might think him honest — but I would not believe one word 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. I 39 

of his statement. I would think first of trances and of all 
natural causes which might produce the semblance of death ; 
but no number of witnesses, in that particular case, would 
convince me that the dead had been brought to life. 

But were the accounts of miracles given us by the evan- 
gelists strictly contemporary with the events they record ? 
Or, was the present canon of Scripture accepted and the books 
therein contained unquestioned as to genuineness and inspira- 
tion in the infancy of the church ? I love to quote Catholic 
authority : it is often so charming in its explicitness. Bishop 
(afterwards Archbishop) Purcell, in his debate with Camp- 
bell (p. 130), says : " You did not see the miracles ; the books 
that record them were written long after they occurred ; and 
many of the most important portions of this very book were 
doubted for upwards of three hundred years after Christ, even 
by Luther himself, in the enlightened sixteenth century! His 
[Campbell's] author, Du Pin, says, there were abundance of 
false Gospels, false epistles, false Acts, in the early ages. How 
then, according to his [Campbell's] principles, can we be sure 
of the authenticity of a single book of the Old or the New 
Testament, being we have no vouchers for the truth but the 
testimony of men ? Here are chasms to be bridged, and links 
in the chain of Scriptural testimony to be welded, for full 
three hundred years, aye, sixteen hundred years before the 
various books of the Scriptures were collected together." 

But have we a divine sanction, or other proof, to show that 
Jesus ever authorized any one to write a history of his acts 
and sayings ? Let Catholic authority answer. See " The Bible 
Question," by the great and good Fenelon, Fletcher's notes, p. 
48 : " Our Divine Redeemer wrote nothing : he only preached. 
But did he not command his apostles to write? Of this or 
of such command there is no testimony in the Bible. So that 
thus there is no proof, in the sacred book itself, that any writ- 



140 REPLY TO LAMBERT S 

ten word has ever been appointed by Christ Jesus himself to 
be the rule of our belief." Again, p. 57 : " The Bible neither 
proclaims its own inspiration, nor can the sacred article be 
proved by any testimony of the Bible." In the same work 
(p. 57) are quoted approvingly the words of "the excellent 
and learned Hooker," as he is there called: ''But it is not 
the word of God, which doeth or can assure us, that zve do well 
to think it his word.'' 

The good priest, it seems to us, had better have argued 
from the true Catholic standpoint, and have averred that the 
Bible does not and cannot prove itself, and that the only present 
and living witness of its inspiration and truth is the Catholic 
Church. When this ground is taken we shall be prepared to 
consider it. I fear, however, that such position would hardly 
be considered tenable by his Protestant readers ; besides, should 
he now change his base he would be obliged, as lumbermen 
say when they ** stick " or " stave," to " raft over." 

We now come to the long-mooted question respecting a 
passage in Joseph us. 

Ingersoll. — '* Is it not wonderful that Josephus, the best his- 
torian the Hebrews produced, says nothing about Jesus?" 

Lambert. — " Here is what he says : ' Now about this time 
Jesus, a wise man,' " etc. 

Ingersoll. — "The passage in Josephus is admitted to be an 
interpolation." 

Lambert. — "Admitted by whom ? By you, and Paine and 
Voltaire, and other infidels, Tooley street tailors." 

Without stopping to commend the manly dignity and 
Christian courtesy of this reply I pass to the question at 
issue. Did Josephus write the paragraph referred to ? I an- 
swer no, and assign the reasons which seem to me to necessi- 
tate the conclusion: 1st, the context shows that it is an inter- 
polation ; 2d, the probabilities of the case, strong enough to 



"notes on ingersoll." 141 

exclude the possibility of an opposite conclusion, show it; 3d, 
it is shown to be spurious by learned Catholic and Protestant 
as well as Hebrew authority. 

First, as to the context. Just before the disputed passage 
intervenes Josephus is speaking of the wrongs suffered by the 
Je\vs at the hands of Pilate and of the end of a certain sedi- 
tion. Then, as we claim, was interpolated the passage : 
" Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be 
lawful to call him a man ; for he was a doer of wonderful works, 
a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He 
drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the 
Gentiles. He was [the] Christ, And when Pilate, at the sug- 
gestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him 
to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake 
him : for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as 
the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other 
wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, 
so named from him, are not extinct at this day." What fol- 
lows ? "About the same time also another sad calamity put 
the Jews into disorder," etc. What ! was it a calamity that 
the crucified Saviour had risen from the dead ? That he had 
proved himself the long-looked-for Messiah, the hope of 
Israel, whose coming the prophets had foretold, and which 
was to be the redemption of the Hebrew race ? 

But leave out the interpolation and you will see how the 
preceding and the succeeding paragraphs dovetail together 
(See "Antiquities of the Jews," Book 18, Chapter 3). 

Second, as to the probabilities of the case. Josephus was a 
Jew and. in his latter days, of that strictest of sects, the Pliari- 
sees, whom Christ had called hypocrites and vipers. Would 
not a convert from such a class, a man of noble lineage and 
of such great learning and literary power, have been referred 
to as one of the greatest triumphs of the new faiih ? Would 



142 REPLY TO Lambert's 

not Joseph us have embraced with holy ecstasy the reh'glon of 
him whom he beHeved to be " the Christ ? " Josephus wrote 
his own biography no earh'er than lOO A. D., but he nowhere 
indicates a change of faith, nor refers to the greatest event of 
all ages, the coming of the Son of God for the redemption of 
the world. 

Third. Historical and critical authorities, by a vast prepon- 
derance, negative the genuineness of the disputed passage. 
True Eusebius refers to it twice, and that is the first reference 
made to it in history. Of Eusebius we are told that " he is 
called the * Father of History,' not because he was master of 
historiographer's art, for he had neither method with respect 
to the whole, nor criticism with respect to details ; neither 
style nor absolute veracity " (" Enc. of Rel. Knowledge," vol. 
i., 771). The same authors observe : " But though this famous 
testimony is by Eusebius (" Hist. Ecc." i., ii). it is entirely spuri- 
ous." See list of learned authorities cited. The " Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica" says: ** Book xviii., chap, iii., sec. 3 [of 
Josephus] contains a remarkable passage relating to Jesus 
Christ, which is twice cited by Eusebius as genuine, and which 
is met with in all the extant MSS. It is, however, unani- 
mously believed to be, in its present form at least, spurious, 
and those who contend for its partial genuineness are decid- 
edly in the minority." To the same effect says the "Amer- 
ican Encyclopaedia." Eusebius was born in the third century 
and died about 34Q A. d. Yet Origen, the most learned father 
of the church, who lived in the second century, says that 
Josephus was not a believer in Jesus. 

Were all these wise, learned, Christian writers, "Tooley 
street tailors? " 

Ingersoll. — " Is it not wonderful that no historian ever men- 
tioned any of these prodigies ? " 

Lambert. — " The prodigies you refer to are, first, the massa- 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL. I43 

ere of the infants by Herod; second, the star of Bethlehem; 
third, the darkness at the time of the crucifixion, etc. 

" The first is referred to by Macrobius, a heathen historian, 
in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the universal be- 
lief in the fact. 

*' The second is mentioned by Chalcidus, a Platonic philos- 
opher, who attests the facts in almost the same words as the 
Gospel. 

"The third (the darkness) is mentioned by Phlegon of 
Trallium, a pagan who lived in the middle of the second 
century; i. <f., about the year of our Lord 150." 

As to Macrobius, who lived in the fifth century, one would 
suppose that he was a poor witness of events which transpired 
some four hundred years before he was born. And again, a 
legend precisely like that told of the massacre of the infants 
by Herod was believed to have taken place 1200 years A. d., 
when a tyrant sought the life of the child Chrishna, the aton- 
ing saviour of the Hindoos. 

Chalcidus, who was born in the second century (scarcely 
contemporary with Jesus or his apostles), speaks, in his 
" Comments on the Timaeus of Plato," of a star which presaged 
neither disease nor death, but the descent of a god among 
men, which was verified by Chaldean astronomers, who hast- 
ened to present gifts to the child-god. But what proof have 
we that Chalcidus referred to events which attended the birth 
of Jesus ? The Father is aware that the unlearned will sup- 
pose that the passage quoted could refer only to the events 
spoken of by the evangelists. They are not presumed to 
know that hundreds of years before Christ was born, and 
among many nations, prophecies were written of stars which 
should appear at the birth of heroes, gods, and demi-gods, 
whose births, with attendant wonders, heathen historians 
afterwards recorded as having occurred in exact fulfilment of 



144 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

prophecy ; that stars appeared ; that wise men hastened to 
bow before the infant prodigies, and to present their gifts in 
token of adoration ; that those saviours of the ancient world 
were born of virgins, and came to save the world and atone 
for sin. "Faber, an EngHsh writer, in his history of idolatry, 
tells us that Zoroaster prophetically declared that a virgin 
should conceive and bear a son, and that a star would appear 
blazing at mid-day to signalize the occurrence. * When you 
behold the star,' said he to his followers, 'follow it whitherso- 
ever it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering to 
him gifts with profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty 
Word which created the heavens. He is indeed the Lord and 
everlasting King.' " * 

So of Chrishna (i200 years b. c), who, according to the 
Hindoo Bible, was born of a virgin, was visited by shepherds, 
wise men, and angels, whose life was threatened, as was that 
of Jesus, by a tyrant, who commanded all of the first-born to 
be put to death ; who was baptized in the river Ganges, was 
anointed by women, and who had his beloved disciple. He 
taught by parables, preached a notable sermon, was honored 
by a triumphal reception by the crowds, who strewed branches 
before him ; taught doctrines of peace and purity, was cruci- 
fied, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples. See 
Appendix (B). The parallel might be extended and numerous 
other cases cited, did space permit, of miraculous occurrences 
attendant on the birth of " god-men," who lived and died long 
before Jesus was born. Does the Father then claim that the 
Platonist, Chalcidus, referred to the star of Bethlehem, when 
heathen records abound in accounts of the appearance, under 
like circumstances, of the same wonders as are recorded by 
the evangelists ; all in attestation of like events (the birth of 
gods), and presaging to humanity the same deliverances? 

*See "The World's Sixteea Crucified Saviours," by Kersey Graves. 



"notes on ingersoll." 145 

Let us now consult the writings of one to whom the literary 
world does deference. I quote from Gibbon's Rise and De- 
clifte of the Roman Empire. 

" During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their 
first disciples, the doctrines which they preached were con- 
firmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the 
blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons 
were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently sus- 
pended for the benefit of the church. But the sages'of Greece 
and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursu- 
ing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared un- 
conscious of any alterations in the moral or physical govern- 
ment of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole 
earth, or at least a celebrated portion of the Roman empire, 
was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even 
this marvellous event, which ought to have excited the won- 
der, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed with- 
out notice in an age of science and history. It happened in 
the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have ex- 
perienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intel- 
ligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a 
laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of 
nature — earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses — which 
his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But the one and the 
other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to 
which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of 
the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclip- 
ses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he 
contents himself with describing the singular deflect of light 
which followed the murder of Caesar, when, during the great- 
est part of the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and 
without splendor. This season of obscurity, which surely 
cannot be compared with the preternatural darkness of the 



146 REPLY TO Lambert's 

Passion, has been already celebrated by most of the poets and 
historians of that memorable age." 

With regard to the passage from Phlegon, cited by the 
Father, and referring to the eclipse said to have taken place 
at the time of the crucifixion, Gibbon in a note remarks : '*// 
has been zvisely abandoned!' But Phlegon, it will be remem- 
bered, was not the contemporary of Jesus nor of the apostles. 
Neither was Julian, nor any of the other authors called by 
the Father to testify to the prodigies which were said to have 
attended the birth and death of Jesus. 

Lambert. — " Why do you reject the works of :^he evangel- 
ists and admit the works of Joseplius ? " 

We do not reject the works of the evangelists in an un- 
qualified sense. They were anonymous productions, written 
or collated, with perhaps one exception, by some authors 
whose names they did not originally bear. The highest 
Catholic authorities tell us, as we have shown, that they do 
not prove themselves. They record prodigies which, in 
themselves, are incredible. Where Josephus does likewise we 
do not receive his statements as true. But that he wrote the 
works accredited to him has never, as far as I know, been 
questioned. We do not say that miracles have never been 
wrought, only that they have not been proved. Says Renan : 
" None of the miracles with which ancient histories are filled 
occurred under scientific conditions. Observation, never once 
contradicted, teaches us that miracles occur only in periods 
and countries in which they are believed in, and before per- 
sons disposed to believe them. No miracle was ever per- 
formed before an assembly of men capable of establishing the 
miraculous character of an act. Neither men of the people 
nor men of the world are competent for that. Great precau- 
^tions and a long habit of scientific research are requisite. 
In our days have we not seen nearly all men the dupes of 



** NOTES ON INGERSOLL. 1 47 

gross prestiges or puerile illusions ? Marvellous acts attested 
by every inhabitant of small towns have become, under a 
more severe scrutiny, acts of felony. It is certain that no 
contemporaneous miracle bears examination; is it not probable 
that the miracles of the past, all of which were performed in 
popular assemblages, would also present to us, were it pos- 
sible for us to criticise them in detail, their share of illusion ? 
" It is not, therefore, in the name of this or that philosophy, 
but in the name of constant experience, that we banish mir- 
acle from history. We do not say ' miracle is impossible ; ' 
we say, * there has been hitherto no miracle proved.' Let a 
thaumaturgist (believer in wonders) present himself to-morrow 
with testimony sufficiently important to merit our attention ; 
let him announce that he is able, I will suppose, to raise the 
dead ; and what would be done ? A commission composed 
of physiologists, physicians, chemists, persons experienced in 
historical criticism, would be appointed. This commission 
would choose the corpse, make certain that death was real^ 
designate the hall in which the experiment should be made,, 
and regulate the whole system of precautions necessary to 
leave no room for doubt. If, under such conditions, the 
resurrection should be performed, a probability almost equal 
to certainty would be attained. However, as an experiment 
ought always to be capable of being repeated, as one ought to 
be capable of doing again what one has done once, and as in 
the matter of miracles there can be no question of easy or 
difficult, the thaumaturgist would be invited to reproduce his 
marvellous act under other circumstances, upon other bodies, 
in another medium. If the miracle succeeds each time, two 
things will be proven : first, that supernatural acts do come 
to pass in the world ; second, that the power to perform them 
belongs or is delegated to certain persons. But who does 
not see that no miracle was ever performed under such con- 



148 REPLY TO Lambert's 

ditions? that always hitherto the thaumaturgist has always 
chosen the subject of the experiment, chosen the means, 
chosen the public? that moreover, it is, in most cases, the 
people themselves who, from the undeniable need they feel 
of seeing in great men and great events something divine, 
create the marvellous legends afterwards. Till we have new 
light, we shall maintain, therefore, this principle of historical 
criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot be accepted as 
such, that it always implies credulity or imposture, that the 
duty of the historian is to interpret it, and to seek what por- 
tions of truth and what portions of error it may contain." 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL." I49 



CHAPTER XIX. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XVIII. 

Father Lambert's Chow-chow Method — The Dogma of Atonement — Necessity 
of Belief and of the Second Birth — Josephus Again — Rev. Lambert's Terrible . 
Mistake about John's Reference to the Ascension — Genealogy of Jesus. 

It would be an easy task to point out the fallacies and miscon- 
ceptions which pervade Cliapter XVIII. of the " Notes" — easy 
and yet annoying to trace multitudinous divisions of subjects 
which could and should be combined by careful generaliza- 
tion. I can afford no longer to follow the Father in his chow- 
chow method. I will, however, give a specimen of the kind 
of proof he offers to overwhelm his adversary. 

Ingersoll. — " Is it not more amazing than all the rest that 
Christ himself concealed from Matthew, Mark, and Luke the 
dogma of the Atonement, the necessity of belief, and the 
mystery of the second birth ? " 

To prove that Christ taught Matthew, Mark, and Luke the 
doctrine of the Atonement, the Father cites Matthew xx. 28 : 
" Even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but 
to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many!' Also 
Acts iii. 18: *' But those things which God had foretold by 
the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he 
hath so fulfilled." 

But these passages do not teach the doctrine of vicarious 
atonement as preached by Paul. Every patriot who dies on 
the battle-field for liberty gives his life, in an important sense, 



150 REPLY TO Lambert's 

as a redemption from slavery, if he fights to redeem a people 
from servitude. Nor do the words, " which God had foretold 
by the mouths of all the prophets, that his Christ should 
suffer," aver that Christ died as a propitiatory offering. Many 
a righteous man suffers for others without becoming an ex- 
piatory sacrifice. 

In refutation of the charge that the first three evangelists 
were ignorant of the " necessity of belief," or that it was not 
taught them by Jesus, we are referred to Mark xvi. 16; " He 
that believeth not shall be damned." And to Acts xvi. 31 : 
''Believe in the Lord Jesus : and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house." 

It should be remembered : 

1. That neither Mark nor Luke was an apostle, and by 
Christian commentators it is believed that neither of them was 
of the seventy disciples, and, hence, that neither of them lis- 
tened to the teachings of Jesus, nor witnessed the miracles 
which they record as having been wrought by him ; and that 
Matthew, who was an apostle and an eye-witness of the acts 
of Jesus, does not insist on the necessity of belief as a doc- 
trine taught by him. 

2. That in the '* Gospel according to Luke," the author does 
not represent the doctrine in question as having been preached 
by Christ. But Luke did listen to Paul, and most likely im- 
bibed the doctrine from him. 

3. That the passage cited from Mark is not found in the 
two oldest Greek manuscripts, and by many Christian writers 
is regarded as spurious. 

The Father avers that Matthew taught the doctrine of the 
** second birth," because he reports Jesus as saying : " Go ye 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In 
this passage we find no reference to a " second birth." Bap- 



"notes on ingersoll." 151 

tism was practised among the heathen as well as among 
Jews and Christians. Nor in the passage in Mark : " He that 
beheveth and is baptized shall be saved " — even admitting its 
genuineness, John is the only one of the evangelists who 
teaches it (John iii. 8). Yet this Gospel is believed by many 
Christian writers to have been written about A. d. 150. 

In regard to the silence of contemporaneous literature re- 
specting the words and works of Christ, Mr. Ingersoll says : 
" There is not in all the contemporaneous literature of the world 
a single word about Jesus and his apostles." 

What do these words imply ? Simply, that during the life 
of Christ history and other literature took no note of him and 
his apostles and of the miracles which the evangelists record. 

Yet the Father takes issue with this statement, and refers 
to writers who make a mere passing reference to Jesus, and 
in one instance to his brother James ; and ever\" one of these 
writers was born after the death of Christ. Yet the Father 
calls their writings " contemporary literature." 

Here again arises the question of the genuineness of the 
disputed passage in Josephus. 

While absent from home and libraries, I took occasion to 
write a letter of inquir}^ on this subject to Rev. Dr. Schles- 
inger, a learned rabbi, a profound scholar and author, of 
Albany, X. Y., who very kindly favored me with the follow- 
lowing letter: 

" Dear Sir : — In reply to your favor of the 3d, I beg to state that the passage 
of Josephus you refer to is now so generally recognized as an interpolation, that 
it is hardly worth while spending a line in proving it again. The passage bears 
prima facie \}i\t. stamp of an interpolation: (i.) Because it differs entirely from 
the usual style of Josephus, and (2) because it interrupts the narrative and has 
no connection with either the preceding or following; but if you take it out the 
parts fit nicely. 

" Before Eusebius, who is by no means the most ancient father of the church, 
no one mentions this passage; though in the numerous apologies of Christianity 



152 REPLY TO Lambert's 

during the second century, it would have been quoted if it had been in exist- 
ence. On the contrary, Origen, who lived a century before Eusebius, and was 
tlie most learned father of the church, states distinctly (Contra Celsum i. 35) 
that Josephus was not a believer in Jesus. 

" Hoping that this will satisfy you, I am, dear sir, yours truly, 

" Dr. ]NL Schlesinger." 

The late Albert Barnes (Presbyterian commentator) says : 
"Josephus, a Jewish historian, and a Jew^ would not be likely 
to record anything that would appear to confirm the truth of 
Christianity " ('' Notes on Matthew," p. 33). Surely, Tooley 
street tailors are becoming numerous. 

Lambert. — " The apostles witnessed the events in the life 
of Christ as others witnessed them. But unlike others, they 
were inspired to give a narrative of the events they wit- 
nessed." 

How do you prove this? The evangelists do not lay claim 
to inspiration. Catholic authority assures us that the Bible 
does not and cannot prove itself On the same authority we 
are informed that : *' With regard to the books of the New 
Testament which we now possess — these, for the most part, 
are the fruit of events, and of accidental circumstances — com- 
posed not so much for the benefit of the public, as for the 
consolation and instruction of private individuals" ("The Bible 
Question," p. 49). 

Again, as before quoted : " The Bible neither proclaims its 
own inspiration nor divine character; an appeal must be made 
to some testimony or evidence beyond, or outside of the holy 
volume." 

Please furnish us that testimony or evidence. 

Mr. IngersoU wonders at the meagre accounts the evan- 
gelists give of that most surprising event, the ascension. 
Matthew does not mention it. Mark and Luke (admitting 
the genuineness of that part of Mark's Gospel) dismiss the 
subject with a single sentence each. John does not refer to 



"notes on ingersoll." 153 

it, the Father's statement to the contrary notwithstanding. 
Hence appears the startling fact that the only two evangelists 
who were apostles, and could have been witnesses of the 
ascension, say nothing about it. 

Here we are astounded at the superficial manner in which 
the good priest treats the Scriptures. 

Ingersoll. — " John corroborates Matthew by saying nothing 
on the subject." 

Lambert. — "John corroborates St. Matthew by saying: 
*And no man hath ascended into heaven but he who descended 
from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven' (John iii. 13). 
This is saying something on the subject, is it not? Why did 
you overlook this text?" 

"VVe reply, this is Jiot saying anything of the ascension. 
John in the passage quoted professes to report the words of 
Jesus spoken to Nicodemus which were said in the early part 
of Christ's ministry, and, of course, long before the crucifixion. 
So, whatever " ascension " was here referred to it could not 
by possibility have been the one which is said to have oc- 
curred after Christ had risen from the dead. What must the 
Father's readers, who dare compare his statements with the 
facts, think of the reliability of a book where the plainest 
words of Scripture are so grossly perverted? But will the 
Father tell us how he reconciles the words of John: "And no 
man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from 
heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven," with 2 Kings ii. 1 1 : 
"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, 
behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, 
and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirl- 
wind into heaven." 

It would seem that the Old and the New Testaments are at 
sad variance in regard to this particular. If Jesus was the 
only man that ever ascended into heaven, Elijah must have 
reined his fiery steeds in some other direction. 



154 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

Of Mark xvi. from the eighth verse to the end, the Father 
says that it is found in " most of the ancient manuscripts and 
that the most ancient of the Fathers admitted it." The Father 
should have referred us to those manuscripts, and have quoted 
to us from the Fathers. If his averments regarding manu- 
scripts and the Fathers are no more trustworthy than his ref- 
erences to Scripture, they cannot be rehed on. But granting 
that the verses in question are found in certain manuscripts, 
we know that they are not found in others, the most ancient, 
while some make a different ending to the chapter. The 
ancient Fathers were a credulous, fanciful set, who recorded 
miracles as of their own day, such as raising the dead to life 
by means of the bones of saints ! They were also believers 
in supernatural visions and dreams. We cannot rely on such 
authority. What are we to believe ? Is doubt in such a case 
a crime, knowing as we do, from the highest authority, that 
the Scriptural writings have been tampered with and changed 
to such an extent that very few of either ancient or modern 
manuscripts agree with each other ? I quote from " Beliefs 
about the Bible," by M. J. Savage, a work of rare perspicuity 
and power, pp. 128-9. 

" Three hundred years had passed since the death of him 
of whom they (the Gospels) were a biography ; and we do not 
know just when they came into the precise shape in which 
they are to-day. The names now attached to them we do not 
find until nearly the last quarter of the second century — that is, 
perhaps, one hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus, 
although the earliest forms of the Gospels may have existed 
long before that. 

"The first question, then, is, whether we have an accurate 
transcript of these four little books in substantially the same 
shape in which they were when they first took form. We are 
obliged to answer this question in the negative ; for the dif- 



"notes on ingersoll. 155 

ferent manuscripts of the Gospels which are in existence give us 
some hundreds if not thousands of various renderings. There 
are differences in words or in phrases, a difference of half a sen- 
tence, sometimes differences of whole paragraphs, or sometimes 
of half a chapter, or even more than that. Then, we know that 
there were changes through the carelessness of transcribers. 
There were changes from dogmatic reasons, in order that the 
persons copying or using them might make them teach what 
they held to be true. . . . Sometimes they were the result of 
intentional fraud. ... It was some time after the New Testa- 
ment books were written before they took on the character 
of sacred writings, when a man would not have been regarded 
as sacrilegious for taking from or adding to them. They were 
considered as the work of ordinary men, and not too sacred 
to be touched or changed as yet. But whatever may have 
been thought of the works of the New Testament in the early 
church, the entire church of the time professed to regard with 
almost superstitious sacredness the books of the Old Testa- 
ment. That was the Scripture before the New Testament be- 
came Scripture. Yet we have theauthority of Origen, writing 
in the third century, for the statement that in the heated and 
angry controversies of that period, people did not scruple to 
change even the text of the Old Testament for their own pur- 
poses. Concerning the Septuagint, he says : * There are evi- 
dently great discrepancies in the copies of the Septuagint, 
whether attributable to the carelessness of scribes, or to the 
rash and pernicious alteration of the text by some, and the un- 
authorized interpolations and omissions of others.' Origen 
writes in that way about the manner in which the early church 
dared to treat even the Old Testament Scriptures ; so you can 
imagine with what freedom they would handle the less sacred 
and newer books that afterwards came to be the New Testa- 
ment." 



156 REPLY TO Lambert's 

The Father says that the apostles 'Svere inspired to give a 
narration of the events they witnessed." He has not told us 
how he knows they were inspired. Mark was not an apostle; 
nor was Luke. Rev. Albert Barnes says of Mark, that he 
considers it extremely improbable that he was one of the 
seventy disciples. He was not an eyewitness of the events he 
records, and, therefore, must have received his information at 
second hand. The same may be said of Luke, of whom the 
same writer observes : " Little is certainly known concerning 
the time of writing this Gospel ; or concerning the author." 
It is not known whether he was Jev/ or Gentile. He lays no 
claim to inspiration, nor does he profess to write by dictation 
of any one. 

The Father denies that either of the evangelists professes 
to give the last words of Jesus. Let the reader refer to Mark 
xvi. 18, 19, and Luke xxiv. 50, 51. 

We now approach the famous genealogical question which 
has perplexed commentators both in past and present time. 

Ingersoll. — " Two of the witnesses, Matthew and Luke, give 
the genealogy of Christ. Matthew says there were forty-two 
generations from Abraham to Christ. Luke insists there 
were forty-two from Christ to David, while Matthew gives the 
number of twenty-eight." 

To explain this discrepancy the Father tells us : " Genera- 
tion has two meanings. It means first, the actual number of 
persons in direct line, as father, son, grandson, great-grandson, 
etc. . . . This kind of generation is therefore of no use wdiat- 
ever, in calculating time or historical epochs. ... It is however 
used to prove legitimacy and the right of inheritance. It is 
generation in this sense that Luke traces, because it was his 
purpose to show that Christ was of the direct line of the elder 
branch of the royal family, and that he was the person who, 
if royalty had continued in the family of David, would have 



"notes on ingersoll. 157 

legally inherited the throne. Luke was dealing with the 
question in reference to legitimacy and inheritance, and with 
no reference to historical time or epochs. 

" The second meaning of generation has reference to time 
and denotes tJie average life of man, which at present is sup- 
posed to be thirty-three years. . . . Now Matthew uses the 
word generation with reference to time — to the average dura- 
tion of life, when the prophecies concerning the coming of 
Christ were written — to prove that those prophecies were veri- 
fied." (You say so, prove it.) 

In other words, as we understand the Father, it is affirmed 
that Luke spoke of generations in regard to individuals with- 
out respect to the length of time they lived, or to the average 
period of human life; while Matthew uses the word according 
to its second meaning, " which has reference to time, and de- 
notes the average life of man ; " and, therefore, as Matthew 
uses the word in one sense, while Luke traces the genealogical 
line according to the other meaning of the word generation — 
they cannot contradict each other. This explanation might 
seem plausible were it not for three things : 

1. It is unsupported by the genealogical tables given by the 
evangelists. 

2. It is in flat contradiction to these tables. 

3. It is unsupported, so far as we are informed, by any com- 
petent authority (save the Father), while opposed to very high 
orthodox commentators and critics, and to common and 
scriptural usage, 

I. It is not supported by the tables referred to. Not one 
word is said either by Matthew or Luke about generation as 
related to individuals as contradistinguished from generation 
in respect to time or ''the average of the life of many The 
statement, therefore, that Matthew referred to one kind of 
generation and Luke to another kind is a gratuitous assump- 
tion. 



158 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

2. Worse still, it is in direct contradiction to the tables as 
given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew begins 
his narrative thus: "The book of the generation of Jesus 
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham be- 
gat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob," and so on until he comes to the 
finale : "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of 
whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the gener- 
ations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations," 
etc. Here we have not only no word which refers to time, or 
to the average of life, but the generations counted by the 
names q{ individuals, which made up the successive links 
in the genealogical chain that united Jesus with Abraham, 
and was supposed to mark him as a lineal descendant of the 
Father of the faithful. 

The good priest, who was to grant nothing and to take noth- 
ing for granted, without referring to Scripture or other au- 
thority, assumes what flatly contradicts the express words of 
the Scriptures themselves. 

3. The proposed explanation is opposed to respected ortho- 
dox authorities. Rev. Albert Barnes, in his Notes on Mat- 
thew i. I, says, "'The book of the generation;' this is the 
proper title of the chapter. It is the same as to say, the ac- 
count of the ancestry, of the family, or the genealogical table 
of Jesus Christ. The phrase is common in Jewish writings. 
Compare Genesis v. i. : * This is the book of the generation of 
Adam ; ' see also Genesis vi. 9.' " Thus we see that the 
Father's criticism is not only opposed to the orthodox com- 
mentator but to common Jewish and scriptural usage. 

But the Father himself is not satisfied with his own expla- 
nation as given above, for we next find him trying to reconcile 
the conflict between the two tables by asserting, without at- 
tempt at proof, that one writer (Matthew) gives the ancestry 
of Christ, the other (Luke) the ancestry of Mary. 



'notes on ingersoll. 159 

Ingersoll. — " Is it not wonderful that Luke and Matthew do 
not agree on a single name of Christ's ancestors for thirty- 
seven generations ? " 

Lambert. — " It is wonderful only to those who are ignorant 
of the fact that Matthew gives the ancestors of Joseph, while 
Luke gives the ancestors of Mary, the Mother of God." 

This explanation takes all the sap out of the preceding one. 
It was not the one accepted by most of the fathers of the 
church. It is opposed to the plain words and obvious inter- 
pretation of Scripture. The Father says that '* Matthew 
gives the ancestors of Joseph." Granted. '* While Luke 
gives the ancestors of Mary." Let us see. In neither of the 
family tables is the name of Mary mentioned. Strange fact, 
if the genealogy of her family is given, and for so important 
a purpose as to prove her descent from Adam through Abra- 
ham by a royal lineage. But to set the matter at rest let us 
inquire, what does Luke purport to do ? Is he describing a 
male or female line of ancestry? Does he begin or end with 
Mary? Luke iii. 23 : "And Jesus himself began to be about 
thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Jo- 
seph, which was the son (not the daughter) of Heli, which was 
the son," etc. In this way we have the male line traced 
backward to Adam from Joseph (not Mary). And yet how 
Jesus could be proved to be of the lineage of Abraham and 
David by showing that Joseph was a descendant of the royal 
line, when Joseph was not the father of Jesus, is a problem 
which puzzles the stupid " infidel." 

Above you have a specimen of a work of which the Buffalo 
Courier says : *' Written with singular controversial insight, 
depth of thought, and breadth of learning." I envy not such 
encomiums. Save from love of truth I would not, if I could, 
pluck one leaf from the laurel wreath which encircles the 
Father's brow. I regard him as an earnest, unfortunate 



i6o REPLY TO Lambert's 

votary of a crystallized dogmatism ; as one who, by steadfast 
gaze into a dark and void expanse, fails to see the priceless 
gems of truth which are scattered in rich profusion around 
him. 

The Father denies that either of the evangelists claims to 
report the last words of Christ as uttered from the cross. I 
will refer the reader to the record of that sad tragedy: "And 
when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said : Father, into 
thy hands I commend my spirit : and having said thus, he gave 
np the ghost'' (Luke xxiii. 46). Who will deny that these 
were recorded as the last words of Jesus ? Again, ** When 
Jesus, therefore, had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished : 
and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost " (John xix. 
30.) Who will affirm that these were not, according to John, 
the last words of Jesus ? Suppose I would say, " My father 
said, ' Bless thee, my son,' and died," would not the common 
sense of every one declare that I had repeated my father's 
last words ? 

Lambert. — " You say that the commission which Christ 
gave to his apostles to pardon sinners ' puts a world beneath 
the feet of priests.' Does the power of pardoning criminals, 
which is in the hands of the governor, place the people of this 
State at his feet ? " 

The priest winces at the charge that the Catholic w^orld is 
beneath the feet of priests. Yet where is there a slavery more 
abject, more humiliating, more absolute, than that to which 
the Catholic devotee is subject ? Other forms of servitude, in 
the main, enslave the body only : the mind being compelled 
to give but an external recognition of superiority, while 
thoughts unexpressed and motives undiscovered are seldom 
sought after. But the priesthood maintains an espionage of 
the soul, and by the confessional extorts from its votaries under 
penalty of eternal torments, every secret thought which the 
church may wish divulged. 



"notes on ingersoll." i6i 

Lambert. — "Does the power of pardoning criminals, which 
is reposed in the hands of the governor, place the people of 
the State at his feet?" 

No, First, because the people of the State are not all crim- 
inals ; secondly, because as to the exceptional class (criminals) 
they are not required to confess to the officers of the law, nor 
to the executive, nor to bow submissively before them, but 
are permitted to prove their innocence, or to show mitigating 
circumstances which may entitle them to executive clemency. 
" Reflect on this for a moment, and you will learn that there is 
more sound than sense in your " analogy. 



1 62 REPLY TO Lambert's 



CHAPTER XX. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XIX. 

Proof of Miracles — Who Wrote the Gospels? — The Evangelists neither Claim 
to Write by Authority nor to be Guided by Inspiration — Neither Catholics nor 
Protestants have an Authoritative Translation of the Scriptures — The Father's 
Statements show that John the Apostle could not have Written the Fourth 
Gospel. 

The reader will remember the resolve formed at the begin- 
ning of the last chapter, not to follow the Father further in 
his devious windings. But the pursuit was begun and con- 
tinued, with what success the reader must decide. Yet really 
some interest did attach to one or two questions last discussed, 
old though they be. But in order to answer something we 
must find something to answer, and the almost entire absence 
of this something is our difficulty in reviewing the " Notes " 
from Chapter XIX. to the end. In the present and succeeding 
chapters few issues are raised save as to opinion, and on matters 
of pure faith one man's notion is as good as another's — if not 
better. But there is a gleam of light even in the darkness. 
We follow it. 

Lambert. — *' Christianity must be defended by straight, true 
and correct methods, or none." 

At last we agree. Over the yawning chasm the Father and 
I can shake hands and congratulate each other on entire ac- 
cord. The question which divides us is a question of evi- 
dence. With regard to TJ^eight of testimony the best of friends 
may differ, honestly differ, and narrow of soul is that man 
who makes that difference a cause of enmity, or even of per- 



** NOTES ON INGERSOLL." I63 

sonal dislike. This whole question can be amazingly simpli- 
fied. The point at issue is : who wrote the Gospels, by what 
authority were they written, and to what extent are they en- 
titled to credit ? By Catholic authority already cited we are 
assured that the Bible does not prove itself. That it " neither 
proclaims its own inspiration, nor can the sacred articles be 
proved by the testimony of the Bible. . . . Thus even our 
great Redeemer, when he had declared himself the Son of God, 
did not require the Jews to believe him, on the mere testimony 
of his word ; but in order to prove the truth of his word, he 
referred them to his miracles." 

Very well, all we ask is proof of those miracles, such as is 
sufficient to convince enlightened and unprejudiced minds of 
their verity. But who wrote the Gospels ? The children in 
Sabbath-school can answer glibly. But suppose you ask 
them the further question, and repeat it to priest and preacher : 
*' How do you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 
wrote the Gospels ? " What will be the response of each ? 
The children will know little or nothing about it, except that 
they have been educated into an unquestioning belief; the 
priest, infantile and plastic as the Sabbath-school pupil, credits 
it on the authority of the church ; and the preacher, he believes 
it, because — well, he believes it any way ! Do not understand 
me as discounting the great, even vast erudition of some 
ecclesiastics, but too often they are weighted in their investiga- 
tions by preconceptions which they deem it profane to question. 
When the eagle's wings are clipped he may not cleave the 
firmament. Suppose you ask the same question of the critic 
who has delved into ecclesiastical history, the thoughtful stu- 
dent, the man of laborious research and of independent 
thought ; what answer will he give ? He relies on historic 
proof, he weighs and sifts ; his soul is not in bondage to fear. 
He can look at the sun of truth in its meridian splendor, nor 



164 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

blink. To him knowledge is light, ignorance darkness : light 
is the parent of light : ignorance both the parent and child of 
darkness. Ask such an one who wrote the Gospels, by what 
authority they were written, and how far entitled to credit, 
and he will tell you : ** This is a question on which I have 
read and thought much. The Gospel authors do not disclose 
their names. The first of the synoptical writers does not say : 
* I, Matthew, write this book ; ' and so of the other three evan- 
gelists. True we see now printed over each book the words 
'according to,' etc., but those titles were not affixed until 
late in the second century. We cannot positively say who 
wrote those anonymous productions, any more than we can 
affirm beyond dispute who wrote * Beautiful Snow,' nor can 
we tell by whose authority they were written. Jesus, as far 
as we are informed, directed no one to write his memoirs. 
The evangelists do not pretend to write by authority, nor to 
be guided by inspiration. This claim is made for them, not 
by them. To what extent then are those writers entitled to 
credit ? We are not sure we have the true text of the four 
Gospels, even if they were written by those to whom they are 
accredited. Manuscripts, some of the most ancient, differ. 
Additions have been made to the text to an extent which jus- 
tified learned Christian writers in saying : ' Turning to the in- 
ternal history of the New Testament text, it is evident that its 
original perfect purity was early lost.' Again, if we were 
certain that we have the true text in the original language, we 
still have no inspired translators. Translations made under 
the direction of popes, even, widely differ. And we are told 
in a Catholic work of high repute : *And surely to condemn 
false versions, and to warn the faithful against them, is no 
other than an act of enlightened pastoral and Christian vigi- 
lance : for the Bible, falsely translated, is no longer the word of 
God''' (** The Bible Question Fairly Tested," p. 15, note). 



" NOTES ON INGERSOLL." 1 65 

Where then, we ask, is our antJwritative translation ? 
Neither the Catholic nor Protestant Church has furnished us 
with one. 

Again, there were certain things written by the evangelists 
which raise a doubt as to their entire historical trustworthiness. 
Luke says: "And it came to pass in those days, that there 
went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world 
should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cy- 
renius was Governor of Syria.)" — Luke ii. 1,2. At this time 
Luke fixes the birth of Jesus, who was born under the reign 
of Herod. Now, it is a fact, as stated by Joseph us (the Fa- 
ther's Christian convert) and admitted by Christian commen- 
tators, that Cyrenius was not Governor of Syria until twelve 
or fifteen years after Jesus was born, and at least ten years 
after the death of Herod, and after Archelaus, his successor, 
was deposed. No doubt the author of " the Gospel accord- 
ing to Luke " was honest ; he only got names and dates a 
little mixed. 

Lambert. — " The/^r/ that there were four inspired Gospels 
written is sufficient evidence that there was a reason for 
four." 

This is a begging of the whole question. Would it not be 
well for the Father to prove that there is at least one Gospel 
which clawts inspiration before assuming that there are four 
which possess it ? 

The Father tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel to con- 
vince the Jews that Christ was the Messiah: if so, he signally 
failed of his object; that Mark wrote his Gospel for the Gen- 
tile converts : Maik does not say so. That, which is at least 
probable, Luke wrote more particularly for Theophilus ; and 
that John wrote his Gospel to refute the heresies of the 
Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Valentinians. And yet, of Ce- 
rinthus, Mosheim says: "The learned arc not entirely agreed 



i66 REPLY TO Lambert's 

whether he belongs to the heretics of the first or the second 
century." The Ebionites, the same author considers, should 
be classed as of the second century. The Valentinians grew 
up about the middle of the second century. Valentinus came 
to Rome in the reign of Antonius Pius, soon after 140 A. D. 
Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, says Valentinus went from 
Rome to Cyprus, and ^kere first became an open enemy to the 
church and a founder of a heretical sect. No one claims that 
John could have written his Gospel after the close of the first 
century. His age and infirmity would have forbidden it, even 
had he lived to such an extreme old age. Commentators 
place his death at about 100 a. d., so that if the Gospel im- 
puted to him was written to confute the Valentinians, it must 
have been written, as claimed by many scholars it was, by 
some one beside John, for he could not have written it in 
refutation of the doctrines of a sect which sprung up forty or 
fifty years after his death. 

Let the Father beware lest he convince us that John, the 
apostle, was not the author of the fourth Gospel. 

We have nothing to do with the Father's grand peroration, 
in which he refers to Voltaire, Gibbon, IngersoU, and others 
as plagues that will appear from time to time to curse the 
moral world. Such splenetic elocution, such cheap declama- 
tion, would appear unseemly in a sophomore oration ; much 
less becoming are they in the work of a grave logician and 
profound theologian. It may be unfortunate when we read 
vindictive drivel, that though we may be able to bridle our 
temper we cannot always smother our disgust. 



NOTES Ox\ INGERSOLL." 1 6: 



CHAPTER XXI. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XX. 

The Honest Infidel — Should Men be Punished for Honest Belief? — Judas Iscar- 
iot— If Catholicity is the True Faith the Whole Protestant World will be Sent 
to Hell to Keep Company with the Infidel — Vicarious Suffering, etc., etc. 

In Chapter XX. we are treated to a dissertation on the hon- 
esty (or dishonesty) of infidehty, and on the justice of God in 
condemning to endless torture those who honestly entertain 
what the church calls heretical beliefs. 

IngersolL — " For the honest infidel, according to the Amer- 
ican evangelical pulpit, there is no heaven. For an upriglit 
atheist, there is nothing in another world but punishment, 
Mr. Black admits that lunatics and idiots are in no danger of 
hell. This being so, his God should have created only luna- 
tics and idiots. Why should the fatal gift of brain be given 
to any human being, if such gift renders him liable to eternal 
hell? Better be a lunatic here and an angel there. Better be 
an idiot in this world if you can be a seraph in the next." 

How does the Father answer this point? Not by affirming 
that honest belief or unbelief should or will be punished. 
Though he, as a Catholic, must hold the doctrine, it would be 
impolitic to avow it here, while he is aiming to conciliate 
Protestant sentiment. But, by covert insinuation, he denies 
the veracity of unbelief, and speaks ironically of honest 
skeptics as being the victims of " defective ph renal develop- 
ment." 



1 68 REPLY TO Lambert's 

Lambert. — " Christianity teaches that God loves the honest 
man, and that he will never punish him for his honest convic- 
tions ; it teaches that God, who is also infinitely wise, knows 
the difference between an honest man and a loquacious dema- 
gogue." 

If this means anything, it implies that the skeptic is dishon- 
est — that his words belie his real convictions. What, then, 
must we think of such men as Humboldt, Darwin, Tindall, 
Huxley, Spencer, Buckle, Draper, etc. — men no more gifted 
in mind than exemplary in morals — who in their social and 
domestic relations were and are models of honesty and of 
unswerving affection and fidelity ; who have devoted lifetimes 
to the study of science in its relations to the intellectual, 
moral, and social development of the human race ? Were and 
are they, the sons and suns of science, hypocritical pretenders, 
with the known fact before them that their feigned skepticism 
will damn them forever ? But let such take comfort. They 
will be in good company ; for, if Catholic teachings be true, 
the whole Protestant world will go with them to their drear 
abode. Milton will be there, with Bacon, Burke, Fox, Pitt, 
Washington, Longfellow, Lincoln, and Garfield. If misery 
love company, the companionship of such noble souls will 
somewhat assuage the anguish of those who, stumbling over 
dogma, fall into the bottomless pit. 

The doctrine of" Invincible Ignorance," according to which 
there may be a possibility of salvation for some, will not avail 
men of the genius and learning of those I have named. 

We will not permit you to stop with the infidel. Carry 
your faith to its legitimate results. When you war with the 
skeptic you are thankful for allies from the Protestant camp. 
When not thus engaged, you sweep both infidel and Protestant 
into a common Hades. We are here reminded of Father Ig- 
natius of St. Paul. "About the year '50 or '51, he was going 



"notes on ingersoll." 169 

about asking for prayers for ' unity,' and was speaking to a 
room-full of Protestant clergymen on the subject ; he made 
such an impression upon them, that they agreed to kneel 
down then and there and pray for unity, and asked Father 
Ignatius to join them, pressing him to do so on every side. 
On this he jumped with indignation, and said in a manner 
quite unusual to him : * I'd rather be torn in pieces by forty 
thousand mad dogs than say a prayer with you.' " A re- 
viewer remarks : " The amiability belonged to the man, the 
uncharitableness to the church." 

This whole subject can be summed up In the answer to 
two questions: i. Can an Intelligent, honest man be a skeptic 
in regard to what are termed the fundamental facts of the- 
ology? 2. If so, should such skepticism be punished with 
endless torments ? 

That honest men have doubted and do doubt those tenets 
which the Christian world holds sacred cannot admit of reas- 
onable question. For to suppose otherwise is to affirm that 
men who are honest and wise In every other respect are dis- 
honest and fools In regard to those things which the most 
nearly concern their Interests, temporal and eternal. 

The Father has answered the second question, for he says, 
" God loves an honest man, and will never punish a man for 
his honest convictions," etc. We entirely agree with this 
statement, and will here let the subject rest. 

The story of the treachery of Judas is not to our taste; but 
it Is at hand and must not be slighted. 

IngcrsolL — " Suppose Judas had known of this plan — known 
that he was selected by Christ, for that very purpose, that 
Christ was depending on him." 

Lambert. — " Suppose he luas not selected for this very pur- 
pose ; that Christ was 7iot depending on him. Where did you 
learn that Judas was selected for this very purpose, or that 
Christ depended on him ? " 



I/O REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

The Father is referred to Acts i. i6: "Men and brethren: 
This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy 
Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, 
which was guide to them that took Jesus." This verse is in 
keeping Avith Romans ix. 17: "For the Scripture saith unto 
Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, 
that I might show my power in thee, and that my name 
might be declared throughout all the earth." 

Ingersoll. — " I insisted upon knowing how the sufferings of 
an innocent man could satisfy for the sins of the guilty." 

After a long diatribe on different kinds of justice, prefaced 
by scurrilous and abusive language, the Father says : 

Lambert. — '* You ask, how can the sufferings of the inno- 
cent satisfy for the sins of the guilty? The sufferings of the 
innocent do not satisfy for the sins of the guilty ; they can, 
however, satisfy for the siiffeiings due the sins of the guilty, 
which is quite another thing. Yo.u can pay a fine of five 
dollars for a loafer who has committed an assault, and save 
him the sufferings of six months in the workhouse ; but while 
your vicarious sufferings to the extent of five dollars remit 
the punishment, they do not * satisfy ' for the offence." 

Startling logic ! Wonderful analogy ! If I pay five dollars 
for the loafer who commits an assault I satisfy the penalty im- 
posed by the judicial officer. The penalty is a pecuniary one, 
and, whether in strict justice or not (for the administration of 
human law is imperfect), the officer of the law is obliged to 
take it. But suppose the " loafer " is convicted of murder and 
is about to be hanged, or commits petit larceny and is about 
to be imprisoned, can I take his place on the scaffold in the 
one case, or suffer incarceration in his stead in the other? We 
pause for a reply. 



NOTES ON INGERSOLL." I/I 



CHAPTER XXII. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XXI. 

Non-Resistance — The Standard of Right and Wrong — Experience Teaches that 
Evil Acts Produce Evil Consequences — A Saint and Father of the Catholic 
Church Justified the Polygamy of the Jews. 

How pleasant would be the labor of controversy, in cases 
like the present, if disputants loved truth above all things, and 
their fellow-man next to truth ! What is victory purchased at 
the price of verity? What a triumph over an adversary if we 
fail to lift him up and dismiss him with a blessing ? They 
who war with carnal weapons are despised if they seek a mean 
or covert advantage ; or if, after they have vanquished him, 
they treat a fallen foe with aught save kindness. What of those 
valiant knights who wield the " sword of the Spirit," and on 
whose heavenly armor is emblazoned the motto : '* When re- 
viled revile not again ? " 

The Father's anxiety to do justice to his opponent is made 
beautifully manifest in the beginning of Chapter XXI. In his 
first article in the North Aincrican Rcvieiv Mr. Ingersoll said : 
" Neither can I admit that a man, by doing me an injury, can 
place me under obligation to do him a service. To render 
benefits for injuries is to ignore all distinctions between actions. 
He who treats his friends and enemies alike has neither love 
nor justice. The idea of non-resistance never occurred to a 
man with power to protect himself The doctrine was the 
child of weakness, born when resistance was impossible. To 
allow a crime to be committed when you can prevent it is 



1/2 REPLY TO Lambert's 

next to committing the crime yourself. And yet, under the 
banner of non-resistance, the church has shed the blood of 
millions, and in the folds of her sacred vestments have gleamed 
the daggers of assassination." 

To what does Mr. IngersoU refer but to the doctrine an- 
nounced in Matthew v. 39, 40: " But I say unto you, that ye 
resist not evil ; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right 
cheek turn to him the other also. 

"And if a man will sue thee at the law and take away thy 
coat, let him have thy cloak also." 

Yet the Father culls a mere fragment from the article from 
which I have quoted, and says : 

Lambert. — '* This is one of your soft, indefinite generalities. 
Let us see what it means and what it is worth practically." 
Then he asks, " Non-resistance to what ? " 

To say the least, this is cool. 

Perhaps the Father may fail to understand the following 
quotation : '* Let us take the teachings of the New Testament 
concerning resistance to evil : the doctrine concerning the 
citizen's relation to government. What is it ? ' Resist not 
evil.' The Quaker is the only man that attempts to carry 
out the doctrine of the New Testament in this direction ; and 
if all the world were Quakers [they fought like Trojans in 
the late war] we might possibly get along with it, though I 
question whether even then it would not be a pretty tame, 
poor kind of a world. Through resistance to injury, resist- 
ance to tyrants, fighting for liberty, fighting for right, has the 
civilization of the world grown. Paul says, * He that resisteth 
the power resisteth the ordinance of God.' * The powers that 
be are ordained of God.' That is substantially the New Tes- 
tament doctrine. The powers that be are manifestations of 
the will of God, and resistance to tyranny and injury of any 
kind is unchristian. Yet look back down the pathway of the 



"notes on ingersoll. 173 

ages upon which our ancestors have trod, leading to the grand 
ideas of freedom and civilization which we hold to-day. See 
the barons at Runnymede demanding from King John the 
concessions of the Magna Charta. The influence of the 
New Testament would have been on the side of the weak- 
minded, vacillating, unscrupulous, tyrannous John," etc. — 
" Beliefs about the Bible," pp. 17 1-2. 

One question of interest and dignity is raised in this dis- 
cussion ; i. e., what is the standard or gauge of right and wrong? 
Extreme cases should not be here discussed. In regard to 
most of these Christian and heathen are in substantial accord. 
But in regard to the every-day affairs of life, how are we to 
know what duty requires of us ? 

Mr. IngersoU's doctrine is, that whatever conduces to the 
substantial happiness of humanity is good ; and that whatever, 
in act or thought, tends to lessen the sum total of that sub- 
stantial happiness is evil. The priest says no; and contends 
that the will of God is the only standard of right and wrong. 
The learned Blackstone, while clinging to revelation as the 
guide of guides, yet says, that the Almighty " has graciously 
reduced the rule of obedience, to this one paternal precept, that 
man should pursue his oivn true and substantial happiness.*' 
How does this differ from Mr. IngersoU's doctrine ? 

But with either or both rules may we not err ? Alas ! here 
comes in that disturbing element, human infirmity. 

Men like to be as gods, knowing everything : they like to 
speak ex cathedra, and, as they can't be gods, they delight to 
officiate as vicars or subvicars of the celestial powers. 

Take the one rule : everything that is right tends to the 
happiness of mankind. With the priest, we ask, " but who is 
to determine what acts tend to the happiness of mankind ? " 

Test the other rule, " the will of God." Can we thereby 
obtain certainty? Let history and individual experience 



1/4 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

answer. Who is the interpreter of the will of God ? The 
church ? What church ? The Catholic ? Are her members 
more liable to discern right from wrong than the adherents to 
other faiths ? Are they more observant of the admitted moral 
code ? Have not her garments been dyed in the blood of 
martyrs ? 

The Father asks : " Do you, before performing an act, pause 
to reflect whether that act, in the long run, . . . will tend in the 
general sum to the happiness of mankind ? Of course you 
don't. Such a calculation is beyond the power of man, hence 
your definition of right is a wretched humbug." 

So will we say when Mr. Ingersoll claims that his rule will 
admit of perfect application when used by imperfect man. 
But what oi your rule? Do you, before doing an act, pause 
to ascertain the will of God in regard to that particular act ? 
For example : you have asserted that a certain passage in 
Josephus is genuine and that " it is not even claimed to be an 
interpolation, except by a few interested critics," whom you 
stigmatize as " infidels and Tooley street tailors." Now, rev- 
erend sir, I have shown you by quotations from the highest 
authorities, not infidel but Christian, not Protestant only but 
Catholic as well as Jewish, that this particular paragraph in 
Josephus is almost universally regarded as spurious — as a base 
forgery. Having shown you this, are you prepared to say 
whether you consulted your rule of faith before penning those 
lines which falsify history and cast unjust opprobrium upon the 
wise and good? Did the church, or, if for the present you 
prefer, the sons and ecclesiastics of the church, during the reign 
of Philip the Second, of Spain, torture and burn according to 
your infallible rule ? Suppose, then, that your standard be the 
true one, who is to apply it ? The church ? The church can- 
not be present to gauge and direct individual action. How, 
then, is your " rule " to be applied so that the devout inquirer 



"notes on ingersoll. 175 

may knoiv what to do, and what to leave undone ? You must 
see, Father, that the objections you make to the one rule bear 
equally strong against the other. The trouble is not, perchance, 
with either rule, but in the application of each and both. 

Lambert. — " The doctrine that acts take their nature and 
quality from their results is a logical and necessary conse- 
quence of the denial of God." 

No one has affirmed what your words imply. 

Ingersoll. — " We know that acts are good or bad only as 
they affect the doers, and others. We know that from ^w^ry 
good act good consequences flow, and that from every bad 
act there are only evil results. Every virtuous deed is a star in 
the moral firmament. There is in the moral world, as in the 
physical, the absolute and perfect relation of cause and effect." 

W^e judge the tree by its fruits. The tree does not take 
its nature from the fruit, but the fruit from the tree, although 
we determine the nature of the tree by the fruit it bears. The 
good priest has only got the cart before the horse, which for 
him is a trifling mistake. 

Ingersoll. — ** If consequences are good so is the action." 

Lambert. — "According to this dictum, you cannot say a 
cold-blooded murder or an assassination is good or bad until 
you have learned the consequences of it ! " 

This is vain quibbling. We all know from the world's ex- 
perience since history became the record of human actions, 
that the crimes referred to do produce evil consequences. 
Those who have not the Bible are cognizant of this fact as well 
as Christians. And further, we never learned from a divinely 
revealed moral code that slavery, polygamy and gambling 
were sinful. The evil effects which flow from such practices 
teach us the iniquity of them ; although even polygamy, as 
practised by the Jews, was justified by a father and saint of 
the Holy Roman Catholic Church ! Dare the Father chal- 
lenge our authority? 



176 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

REPLY TO CHAPTER XXIL 

Father Lambert's Vulgar and Abusive Methods Chargeable, not to the Man, but 
to his Religion — The Millennial Dawn — " Criticism Born of the Present 
Generation" — Catholic Lambs and Green Pastures — Noble and Pure Re- 
ligions of the Ancient Nations — Conclusion, 

Our task is nearly done. We rejoice. How near we have 
come to the accomplishment of the object we proposed in our 
introductory we leave others to judge. Much more agreeable 
is it to reply to an appeal to reason than to an address to 
prejudice and passion — to those who observe the amenities 
of controversy than to those who persistently violate them. To 
say of an opponent, as the Father has done, that he is profli- 
gate of statement ; that he is not to be trusted ; that he is 
unscrupulous ; that as a metaphysician he is beneath con- 
tempt; that he is ignorant and superficial — full of gas and 
gush ; that he is a philosophical charlatan o( the first water, 
proves nothing. If, as the Father claims, he has demonstrated 
these charges, can he not trust to the intelligence of his read- 
ers to discover the fact ? 'fhe Father has done himself great 
injustice and has inflicted far greater injury on himself than 
on his adversary. We do not think him half as bad a man 
as his book would seem to indicate. Aside from theological 
matters we do not believe him saturated with vindictive spleen. 
Should Mr. Ingersoll, in riding past the good priest's dwell- 
ing, be thrown from his carriage and injured, the priest would 



"notes on ingersoll. 177 

be the first to help him up, to afford him food and shelter, 
and, if need be, to call to his bedside those ministering angels, 
the sisters of mercy. So also, I feel assured, would Mr. In- 
gersoll, under rev^ersed circumstances, do for the priest — yea, 
or for the priest's servant. Such spontaneous acts of kindness 
teach us the dignity of true manhood irrespective of creed, 
and proclaim the common brotherhood of man. 

The Father has not said worse of Mr. Ingersoll than have 
Catholic writers of Protestants and Protestant writers of Cath- 
olics and of each other. But a brighter day is dawning. The 
spirit of love is exorcising the demons of hate, and millennial 
splendors of an age which shall proclaim the glad tidings of 
peace on earth and good will to all men are even now begin- 
ning to illumine the vast intellectual and moral firmament which 
spans humanity. Men are beginning to realize that no one is 
wholly good, nor wholly bad ; that no faith, however near it 
may be able to approximate absolute truth, is entirely perfect ; 
and, as Herbert Spencer puts it, that there is, in general, "a 
soul of truth in things erroneous." 

** Criticism is born of the present generation." In the past, 
the letter was revered, the spirit disregarded. Or, if a deeper 
than the literal meaning was sought, the word was spirit- 
ualized into an attenuated nothingness. Dogmatism was im- 
perious, intolerant, persecuting. A blind, unreasoning faith 
gave the highest claim to sanctity. Doubt was criminal. A 
desire to see and understand even the works of the Creator, 
which St. Augustine esteemed "A vain and curious desire 
hiding under the name of science," if not absolutely sinful, 
was detrimental to growth in holiness. To enjoy the luxuries 
w^hich nature provides was to indulge in questionable pleas- 
ure, while to " mortify the flesh " by self-inflicted torture ar- 
gued a commendable zeal and led to a high state of spiritual 
exaltation. Where this spirit prevailed the fountains of 



1/8 REPLY TO LAMBERTS 

knowledge were sealed. Philosophy became a quagrnire and 
religion a pathless wild. 

The world was then a prison-house guarded by priestly 
sentinels who "thrust their ungainly forms" between their 
victims and the free air and cheery sunlight. How changed ! 
We may now look up to the heavens and smile. We may 
gather unbidden the fruits of scientific research ; nor deem the 
craving to pry into the secrets of star and rock and leaf, and 
the social and domestic laws and habits of insect life, " a vain 
and curious desire." And who would change the present for 
the past? Are not the people of to-day as wise, as good and 
as happy as were the people of the middle ages? True, 
theology and philosophy are compelled to a crucial test, but the 
refining process is a purifying one. True that inquiry gener- 
ates doubt ; but doubt is the harbinger of discovery. 

Why does the Catholic Church above all other churches 
tremble because the spirit of the age impels all classes to 
think, and, thinking, to judge ? If its superstructure rest 
on the foundation rock of eternal truth the winds of skepticism 
can never topple it. Or is there a fear that the lambs of its 
fold may be seduced by the prowling wolves of error into 
leaving their secure abode ? True those lambs do sometimes 
seek for pastures green a little beyond their own enclosure; 
but we see not that any harm has come to them. 

This dread of mental freedom is akin to that of the hen, 
standing on the shore, in the agony of maternal solicitude, 
uttering her persuasive " cluck, cluck, cluck," while her 
young ducklings swim, and dive and disport themselves in 
the water, from which, to the great amaze of their foster- 
mother, they emerge, all the cleaner and better for their 
bath. 

But a few years ago all forms of religion save the Hebrew 
and Christian were considered as unmitigated curses — as 



179 

wholly evil in conception and precept. Modern research has 
dispelled, this delusion. Not only has it proved that there is 
a kinship between the languages but also between the religions 
of nations. The learned Max Miiller has done much in this 
direction, and as the result of a research almost unparalleled 
says, that " he who knows one religion knows none." The 
same author observes that, according to Buddha, the motive 
of all our actions should be pity or love to our neighbors. 
From Buddha's sayings we cull the following — 

"As the bee collects honey and departs without injuring 
the flower, so let the sage dwell on the earth. 

'"These sons belong to me and this wealth belongs to me.' 
With such thoughts a fool is tormented. He himself does not 
belong to himself; how much less sons and wealth ! 

" Let no man think lightly of evil, saying in his heart, * it 
will not come nigh unto me.' Let no man think lightly of 
good, saying in his heart, * it will not benefit me.' Even by 
the falling of water-drops a water-pot is filled." 

" Let a man overcome anger by love, evil by good, the 
greedy by liberality, the liar by truth." 

The tombs and monuments of ancient Egypt have unsealed 
to us some of the mysteries of religious belief as it existed 
anterior to what is termed the " Noachian deluge." Here is 
the conception of the Great Being as entertained by the an- 
cient Egyptians. 

" Every one glorifies thy goodness. Mild is thy love 
towards us : thy tenderness surrounds our hearts. Great is 
thy love in all the souls of men. 

" Let not thy face be turned away from us : the joy of our 
hearts is to contemplate thee. Chase all anguish from our 
hearts. He wipes tears from off all faces. 

" Hail to thee, Ra, Lord of all truth ; who listencth to the 
poor in his distress ; gentle of heart when we cry to thee ; 



i8o REPLY TO Lambert's 

deliverer of the timid man from the violent; judging the poor 
and the oppressed, sovereign of life, health and strength. 

" The heart of man is no secret to him that made it. He is 
present with thee though thou be alone." 

'* There has recently been brought to light, from the ruins 
of that old civilization (the Egyptian), almost a complete 
work, called the maxims of Ptahhotep, which dates from the 
age of the Pyramids, and which even then refers to the au- 
thority of ancient time. It is the most ancient book in the 
world as far as is known. Renouf, the great French Egyptian 
scholar, says that 'they inculcate the study of wisdom, the 
duty to parents and superiors, respect for property, the ad- 
vantages of charitableness, peaceableness and content, of 
liberality, humility, chastity and sobriety, of truthfulness and 
justice.' M. Chabas, who first gave the book to the world, 
says : * None of the Christian virtues is forgotten in it : piety, 
charity, gentleness, self-command in word and action, chastity, 
the protection of the weak, benevolence toward the humble, 
deference to superiors, respect for property in its minutest 
details — all is expressed there, and in extremely clear lan- 
guage' " (" Beliefs about the Bible," pp. 160-61). 

Is not this clear cut perception of the difference between 
right and wrong, a proof that even " heathen " nations who 
had neither the Jewish nor Christian " rule " had yet a stand- 
ard of judgment with which to test the morality of actions, 
faultless in its beauty and perfect in its fullness? Contrast 
their pure teachings with the doctrine of hate and the com- 
mands of unrelenting persecution as disclosed in the Old 
Testament Scriptures, and say which has the best right to the 
claim of divine inspiration ? 

Should we regret that by unveiling the secrets of past gen- 
erations we are compelled to a higher estimate of their virtue, 
their intelligence and the purity of their religious conceptions. 



"notes on ingersoll." i8i 

than we have hitherto entertained? Should \vc not rather 
rejoice that in the morning of his being man was not left witli- 
(uit the light of conscience; nor without a safe standard with 
which to determine right from wrong? 

We will not be estopped from admiring wherever found, 
whether in human character or human institutions; whether 
in ages past or in present time; whether in rehgions which 
have germinated spontaneously in the human breast or been 
revealed from the skies. Names and pretense amount to 
little ; substance to everything. To us, all that is noble, 
good or true is divine, and as such we will pay it the homage 
of our hearts. Says Renan : " Because w^e do not attach 
ourselves to any of the forms which captivate human adora- 
tion, we do not renounce the enjoyment of all that is good 
and beautiful in them. No passing vision exhausts divinity ; 
God was revealed before Jesus, God will be revealed after 
liim. Widely unequal and so much the more divine, as they 
are the greater and more spontaneous, the manifestations of 
the God concealed in the depths of the human conscience 
are all of the same order. Jesus cannot, therefore, belong 
exclusively to those who call themselves his disciples. He is 
the common honor of all who bear a human heart. His glory 
consists, not in being banished from history; we render him 
a truer worship by showing that all history is incomprehen- 
sible without him." 

The age of dogma is fast passing away. Fear is becoming 
less and less a controlling power with the intelligent and de- 
vout. Free thought has possessed the thinking minds of the 
laity and has even invaded the pulpit. Dogmas which have 
been frozen into the brain have been thawed into a more 
humane consistence by the warm pulsations of the heart. 
Doctrines which we heard in our infancy are no longer j:)ro- 
claimed in their rigid, forbidding aspects. Tears of love and 



1 82 REPLY TO LAMBERT. 

pity have quenched the fires of hell. Scientific facts are ac- 
cepted without regard to a possible conflict between them and 
Scriptural exegesis. In short, the minds of men are being 
disenthralled from the bondage of superstition, and are begin- 
ning to rejoice in that liberty which is the life of the soul and 
the light of the world. 



APPENDICES 



APPENDIX A. 

The following notices of the press, together with the " Challenge," as set forth 
below, we copy from The CatJiolic Union and Times, of Buffalo, N. Y. : 

" The author conipletely turns the tables on the doughty colonel. We com- 
mend the volume to all who would see the assumptions and crudities and mis- 
takes of Ingersoll turned inside out, upside down, end for end, and over and over." 
— Chicago Star and Covenant (leading Universalist paper in the Western States). 

"There is neither truth, nor life, nor argument left in Ingersoll when Father 
Lambert has done with him." — Chicago Western Catholic. 

" We hope this pamphlet will find numerous readers among non-Catholics who 
desire to see the rot and rant of Ingersoll rubbed out by the learning and logic 
of Father Lambert." — San Francisco Monitor. 



*' We purpose placing a copy in the hands of every delegate 
to the approaching Thinker's Convention in Rochester, and 
shall challenge them individually and collectively to reply." — 
From The Catholic Union and Times ^ Aiignst 2, 1883. 



"The author takes up and thoroughly riddles the impious blasphemer." — 
Louisville Western J^ec order (Prot.) 

"An earnest and keen reasoner. The pamphlet should have many readers." 
— New York Herald. 

We clip the following from the Christian Witness and Advocate of Bible 
Holiness, Boston, December 18, 1884: 

" * Notes on Ingersoll,' by Rev. L. A. Lambert, Seventh edition ; looth 
thousand. Published by the Catholic Publication Society, Buffalo, N. Y. This 
remarkable book is still selling, and Colonel Ingersoll will find it a hard book 
to answer. As the publishers say, ' it is growing on them.' We are now engaged 
on the eighth edition, 30,000 copies, which will bring the total number published 
up to 130,000. Two editions have been 'pirated' in England, and one in 
Canada; and we have printed a large edition in London ourselves. In addition, 
the work has been translated into half a dozen different languages in as many 
different countries." 

(183) 



184 APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX B. 
" The history of Chrishna Zeus is contained principally in the Baghavat Gita, 
the episode portion of the Mahabarat Bible. The book is believed to be divinely 
inspired like all other Bibles, and the Hindoos claim for it an antiquity of 6,000 
years. Like Christ he was of humble origin, and like him had to encounter 
opposition and persecution. But he seems to have been more successful in the 
propagation of his doctrines, for, it is declared, * he soon became surrounded by 
Inany earnest followers, and the people in vast multitudes followed him, crying 
aloud : "This is indeed the Redeemer promised to our fathers." ' His pathway 
was thickly strewn with miracles, which consisted in healing the sick, curing 
lepers, restoring the dumb, deaf, and the blind, raising the dead, aiding the 
weak, comforting the sorrow-stricken, relieving the oppressed, casting out devils, 
etc. He came not ostensibly to destroy the previous religion, but to purify it of 
its impurities, and to preach a belter doctrine. He came, as he declared, * to 
reject evil and restore the reign of good, and redeem man from the consequences 
of the fall, and deliver the oppressed earth from its load of sin nnd suffering.' 
His disciples believed him to be God himself, and millions worshipped him as 
such in the time of Alexander the Greet, 330 B. C. The hundreds of counter- 
parts to the history of Christ, proving their histories to be almost identical, will 
be seen from the belief of his disciples, i. In 'his miraculous birth by a vir- 
gin. 2 The mother and child being visited by shepherds, wise men, and the 
angelic host, who joyously sang: " In thy delivery, oh ! favored among women, 
all nat.ons shall have cause to exult." 3. The edict of the tyrant ruler Cansa 
ordering all the fir>t-born to be put to death. 4. The miraculous escape of the 
mother and child from his bloody decree by the parting of the waves of the river 
Jumna to permit them to pass through on dry ground. 5. The early retirement 
of Chrishna to a desert. 6. His baptism or ablution in the river Ganges, cor- 
responding to Christ's baptism in Jordan. 7. His transfiguration at Madura, 
where he assui-ed his disciples that "present or absent, I will always be with 
you." 8. He had a favorite disciple (Arjoon), who was his bosom friend, as 
John was Christ's. 9. He was anointed with oil by women. . . . Like Christ 
he taught much by parables and precepts. A notable sermon preached by him 
is also reported.' On one occasion, having returned from a ministerial journey, 
as he entered Madura, the people came out in crowds to meet him, strewing the 
ground with the branches of cocoanut trees, and desired to hear him ; he ad- 
dressed them in parables, the conclusion and moral of one of which, called the 
parable of the fishes, runs thus : 'And thus it is, oh, people of Madura, that you 
ought to protect the weak and each other, and not retaliate upon an enemy the 
wrongs he may have done you.' . . . 'And thus it was,' says a writer, • that 
Chrishna spread among the people the holy doctrines of purest morality, and 
initiated his hearers into the exalted principles of charity, of self-denial, and self- 
respect, at a time when the desert countries of the west were inliabited only by 
savage tril)es.' " — The IVorhCs Sixteen Crucified Saviours, pp. 9S, 99. 



RD-17 





















.*^ 












^o-', 















'•>:.%^' 











0* .''JJ.* 



*bV 









O^ "o , ,* A 






r oo-v. <t 



<. */7V«* .0 







/.C^^*°o 



o^ '» • » * A 



<> *'TV 











'^' 








.^' 














> - • • • , /-N (J» - • * 













n 4 



Q^, 




.0^ •• ^J>L% "^ 









A o^ • 



<0^. 









• <t> 






















"o V 
















>r '* 




V * 







v • 



DOBBS BROS. 
libhahv binoino 



ST. AUGUSTINE 
^ FLA. 



.^'\ 




«^« • 








32084 




,Hq. 




^^-n^. 




.-i^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



ill 



illJIII 



i 



029 789 036 






\<'^m\m-^:< 



i \ 






' ''vV 






'. KC 



'iTlTiTI'|'ITI'NTl'('|l|l|fM 




fc.^ 



rr 




1 






■ 


■ 
■ 









■«:'' 



42 



44 I 46 

I I I I . 



48 



,i....i, 



CO 

CM 

I 



o> 






r 



00297 



repi vt orevi al ambOII acv 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^ 

lllll:ill]Ji;llli;ll;IIIJl.ir 

029 789 036 






»1t > ^ -^ ^ 






L-Lii'iJ^AjSSd. 



